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?
Showing posts with label Rocks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rocks. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
CPSIA - The Hill Publishes My Op-Ed on CPSIA Hearings
Enough already! It’s time to amend the lead law
By Richard Woldenberg
04/06/11 02:51 PM ET
After almost three years of bickering over the law regulating lead in children’s products, a comprehensive amendment is finally up for discussion in the House of Representatives. It’s about time.
In August 2008, the 110th Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in an overreaction to notorious lead-in-paint toy recalls. Claiming that weak regulation “caused” these violations of law (lead-in-paint has been illegal for decades), consumer groups coined a slogan to sum it up: “There is NO safe level of lead”. Stooping low to sow fear, they have even warned the CPSC about the perils of bicycle licking and playing brass instruments in the school band. Their lead slogan has been repeated endlessly to justify a stifling, over-reaching law which has accomplished little but damaged many fine companies, killed jobs and depressed markets. The CPSIA deems companies "guilty until proven innocent" by forcing them to test products over and over again at huge expense to prove compliance with the new lead standard.
The screams of law-abiding companies have been consistently ignored by CPSC as it has implemented ever-harsher regulations under the new law. The safety agency is even considering ratcheting down permissible lead from 300 ppm to the unimaginably low 100 ppm level. Economics be damned!
In contrast to the claims of CPSIA backers warning that the sky is falling, CPSC recall records list only four alleged lead injuries from 1999 to 2010 among the nation’s 50+ million young children. Advocates have never produced victim case histories to justify the draconian rules and simply wag their fingers at anyone daring to question their cherished law.
As directed by Congress, the CPSC has dutifully banned the sale of rhinestones to children, ended the era of youth model ATVs and forbidden the use of brass bushings in toy car wheel assemblies. Why? They might emit a single atom of lead! The supporters of the law justify these extreme actions on the grounds that lead is a poison but somehow overlook that kids are exposed to more lead every day from eating a snack, drinking water or playing outside in the fresh air. The descent into regulation purgatory is down a slippery slope.
Being governed by this law can give you fits. For example, to be able to continue to legally sell our geology kits to schools (featuring real rocks!), we must give this warning: “Caution: Federal law requires us to advise that the rocks in this educational product may contain lead and might be harmful if swallowed.” We don’t relish looking like idiots at the hand of the U.S. government.
We’re certainly not alone in feeling the pain. The law affects many safe products spanning the U.S. economy, like books, t-shirts and shoes, ATVs and dirt bikes, bicycles, donated or resale goods, musical instruments, pens and educational products. The number of companies touched by the CPSIA is in the many thousands.
The CPSIA was written in response to failings of big companies, but hammers small and medium-sized companies with particular vengeance. Our small business has already lost customers who now feel that selling toys is too confusing or too much of a “hassle”. Market shrinkage courtesy of the federal government is our new reality. The technical rules and ever-changing legal requirements are beyond the capability of all but the most highly-trained quality managers or lawyers to comprehend. For this reason, small businesses bear the greatest risk of liability under the law, despite being responsible for almost no injuries from lead in the last decade. The double whammy of massive new regulatory obligations and the prospect of devastating liability are driving small businesses out of the children’s market.
Our family business makes educational products, and we work tirelessly to ensure that our products are safe. We have tested our products for decades now. None of us could ever tolerate lead poisoning. Nevertheless, I believe that our company should not be crushed by our government over some consumer groups' phobias and junk science.
The 112th Congress should know better after years of hearings, comment letters, op-eds, pleading and even direct appeals from the five CPSC Commissioners. To quote The Who, "We won’t get fooled again." If Congress is serious about fixing our economy and creating jobs, it’s time to lift the yoke of the CPSIA and set the children’s product market free once again.
Richard Woldenberg is Chairman of Learning Resources, Inc.
By Richard Woldenberg
04/06/11 02:51 PM ET
After almost three years of bickering over the law regulating lead in children’s products, a comprehensive amendment is finally up for discussion in the House of Representatives. It’s about time.
In August 2008, the 110th Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in an overreaction to notorious lead-in-paint toy recalls. Claiming that weak regulation “caused” these violations of law (lead-in-paint has been illegal for decades), consumer groups coined a slogan to sum it up: “There is NO safe level of lead”. Stooping low to sow fear, they have even warned the CPSC about the perils of bicycle licking and playing brass instruments in the school band. Their lead slogan has been repeated endlessly to justify a stifling, over-reaching law which has accomplished little but damaged many fine companies, killed jobs and depressed markets. The CPSIA deems companies "guilty until proven innocent" by forcing them to test products over and over again at huge expense to prove compliance with the new lead standard.
The screams of law-abiding companies have been consistently ignored by CPSC as it has implemented ever-harsher regulations under the new law. The safety agency is even considering ratcheting down permissible lead from 300 ppm to the unimaginably low 100 ppm level. Economics be damned!
In contrast to the claims of CPSIA backers warning that the sky is falling, CPSC recall records list only four alleged lead injuries from 1999 to 2010 among the nation’s 50+ million young children. Advocates have never produced victim case histories to justify the draconian rules and simply wag their fingers at anyone daring to question their cherished law.
As directed by Congress, the CPSC has dutifully banned the sale of rhinestones to children, ended the era of youth model ATVs and forbidden the use of brass bushings in toy car wheel assemblies. Why? They might emit a single atom of lead! The supporters of the law justify these extreme actions on the grounds that lead is a poison but somehow overlook that kids are exposed to more lead every day from eating a snack, drinking water or playing outside in the fresh air. The descent into regulation purgatory is down a slippery slope.
Being governed by this law can give you fits. For example, to be able to continue to legally sell our geology kits to schools (featuring real rocks!), we must give this warning: “Caution: Federal law requires us to advise that the rocks in this educational product may contain lead and might be harmful if swallowed.” We don’t relish looking like idiots at the hand of the U.S. government.
We’re certainly not alone in feeling the pain. The law affects many safe products spanning the U.S. economy, like books, t-shirts and shoes, ATVs and dirt bikes, bicycles, donated or resale goods, musical instruments, pens and educational products. The number of companies touched by the CPSIA is in the many thousands.
The CPSIA was written in response to failings of big companies, but hammers small and medium-sized companies with particular vengeance. Our small business has already lost customers who now feel that selling toys is too confusing or too much of a “hassle”. Market shrinkage courtesy of the federal government is our new reality. The technical rules and ever-changing legal requirements are beyond the capability of all but the most highly-trained quality managers or lawyers to comprehend. For this reason, small businesses bear the greatest risk of liability under the law, despite being responsible for almost no injuries from lead in the last decade. The double whammy of massive new regulatory obligations and the prospect of devastating liability are driving small businesses out of the children’s market.
Our family business makes educational products, and we work tirelessly to ensure that our products are safe. We have tested our products for decades now. None of us could ever tolerate lead poisoning. Nevertheless, I believe that our company should not be crushed by our government over some consumer groups' phobias and junk science.
The 112th Congress should know better after years of hearings, comment letters, op-eds, pleading and even direct appeals from the five CPSC Commissioners. To quote The Who, "We won’t get fooled again." If Congress is serious about fixing our economy and creating jobs, it’s time to lift the yoke of the CPSIA and set the children’s product market free once again.
Richard Woldenberg is Chairman of Learning Resources, Inc.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
CPSIA - House Hearings Questions about Rock Labels
Rep Butterfield questioned me about whether we REALLY needed to place labels on our rock kits indicating that our rocks might contain lead. As you may recall, I wrote about this last week and provided the clear explanation that the CPSIA bans the sale of any children's product which has components that may contain lead. That includes rocks in rock kits. Oops. I have embedded the clip of his query below, followed by a clip where Rep. Cassidy (a medical doctor) attempts to clarify the situation further.
I think it is important to note that Mr. Butterfield was making a point he believed in. He was gracious to me and my children before the hearing and I don't wish to question his intelligence here. I mean no insult or disrespect. Actually, the implication of his question is significant. He had days to study up on this question (he had a copy of my remarks in advance) and relied on Democratic counsel to the committee to analyze this legal point. He and his lawyers got it plainly wrong. As you will see below, Nancy Cowles also fumbled this same ball. The law CLEARLY requires this label of me, and it's THEIR law (the CPSIA). So what do I conclude? The Dems and the safety zealots don't understand the workings of the law they so vigorously defend. I believe this speaks directly to the challenge operating businesses face. If the authors don't get it, how are we supposed to? The answer is self-evident.
The question of WHY they continue to push so hard for a law they don't understand remains open. I don't think we can assert that they are bad people or dumb. If that's the case, and it is, what are they up to? I will chip away at this point in coming days.
Rep. Butterfield on rocks:
Rep. Cassidy on rocks:
I think it is important to note that Mr. Butterfield was making a point he believed in. He was gracious to me and my children before the hearing and I don't wish to question his intelligence here. I mean no insult or disrespect. Actually, the implication of his question is significant. He had days to study up on this question (he had a copy of my remarks in advance) and relied on Democratic counsel to the committee to analyze this legal point. He and his lawyers got it plainly wrong. As you will see below, Nancy Cowles also fumbled this same ball. The law CLEARLY requires this label of me, and it's THEIR law (the CPSIA). So what do I conclude? The Dems and the safety zealots don't understand the workings of the law they so vigorously defend. I believe this speaks directly to the challenge operating businesses face. If the authors don't get it, how are we supposed to? The answer is self-evident.
The question of WHY they continue to push so hard for a law they don't understand remains open. I don't think we can assert that they are bad people or dumb. If that's the case, and it is, what are they up to? I will chip away at this point in coming days.
Rep. Butterfield on rocks:
Rep. Cassidy on rocks:
CPSIA - House Hearings Testimony of Richard Woldenberg 2-17-11
I have created some clips from the hearing on CPSIA and CPSC Resources held before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade on February 17, 2011 in Washington, D.C. I have not prepared every single clip from the hearing. If you want to see the entire thing, click here and enjoy! Otherwise, I am going to post numerous clips and you can pick and choose as you see fit.
My testimony at the House hearing:
My testimony at the House hearing:
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
CPSIA - Fox Business on CPSC Crushing Small Businesses
I appeared on Fox Business tonight. Please check it out.
I received a wise email today entirely filled with quotes. Here's one to ponder:
"A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth."
- Will Rogers
I received a wise email today entirely filled with quotes. Here's one to ponder:
"A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth."
- Will Rogers
Monday, October 11, 2010
CPSIA - WSJ Profiles RW in Article on Business Backlash
POLITICS
OCTOBER 12, 2010
Business Backlash Grows
By ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON
VERNON HILLS, Ill.—Rick Woldenberg runs an educational-products company from a suburban Chicago office stacked with brightly colored toys. He supported President Barack Obama in 2008. But he has turned on Democrats this year.
Sally Ryan for The Wall Street Journal
Rick Woldenberg, chairman of Learning Resources in Chicago, backed President Barack Obama in 2008 but is now raising money for Republicans.
Mr. Woldenberg is angry that Congress and the Obama administration won't revise expansive new rules on lead testing in children's products that he says will kill his business, Learning Resources Inc. So he is raising money for Republicans among Chicago business owners to help the GOP—so much money that he is rattling the incumbent in what has been one of the safest Democratic seats in Mr. Obama's home state.
"If Democrats are going to put me out of business, I'm going to put them out of business first," he said.
Disaffected business owners like Mr. Woldenberg have emerged as a potent force in the 2010 campaign. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which plans to spend $75 million in this election cycle, says it has exceeded its targets for raising money from small businesses every quarter this year, despite the poor economy. More small-business candidates are running for public office than at any time in a generation, say officials at the National Federation of Independent Business, the capital's chief small-business lobby.
Business contributions are fueling campaign efforts by conservative and business groups, which are gearing up to spend as much as $300 million to help Republicans this fall.
Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats have wooed small-business owners with a series of tax breaks and a $30 billion lending program that was the centerpiece of a Small Business Jobs Act Mr. Obama signed last week at a White House ceremony attended by a group of supportive entrepreneurs.
But many small-business owners still fault Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats for what they see as a costly explosion of new rules and regulations.
"I think Obama ran as more of a moderate, and business people here are now realizing that this huge expansion of government is not sustainable," said Leo Dombrowski, an attorney at Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP in Chicago, whose clients are fighting new environmental rules.
Mr. Woldenberg has helped raise more than $470,000 for Joel Pollak, a 32-year old Harvard Law School graduate who is challenging Rep. Jan Schakowsky in Chicago's 9th district, a friend of Mr. Obama who is an author and ardent defender of the new children's-product lead law. That's 20 times more than any Republican has ever raised for a run against Ms. Schakowsky, who won 75% of the vote in the last election and is vying for a 7th term.
"This is a war," he said. "Individuals can make a difference, and I want my kids to see it."
Over the past few months, Mr. Pollak said, he and Mr. Woldenberg have been trying to tap into "donors residing outside the district with a strong business or personal motivation." The Pollak campaign scored a fundraising appearance by Republican economic policy star Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Mr. Pollak took the podium and pointed out Schakowsky campaign manager Alex Armour, who was in the crowd videotaping the event.
Ms. Schakowsky is polling at slightly more than 60%, according to her internal polls, a solid lead but narrower than in the past. The campaign has hired four field staffers for the first time, and is sending less money to Democrats in closer races.
"I'm not worried about it, but I'm taking it seriously," she said. Ms. Schakowsky said Mr. Woldenberg's success as a fundraiser, is proof that "very cynical … special interests are highly engaged in the campaign."
As for the lead law, she said she was proud of it. "The goal is to save children from toys that are toxic."
Mr. Woldenberg's efforts include addressing 130 people in a Holiday Inn ballroom in suburban Skokie, Ill., during Mr. Pollak's "Chicagoland Business Breakfast" in late September.
He held up a "box of rocks," the company's igneous rock collection kit, and read its new consumer warning.
"Caution: federal law requires us to advise that the rocks in this educational product may contain lead and might be harmful if swallowed,'" he read, to laughter.
"This is humiliating," he said, ticking off the costs of the law. "I'm hoping Joel can help us."
Two dozen attendees took the microphone, voicing concerns with health-care, tax, environmental and workplace rules. They included Jay Stieber, vice president of restaurant chain Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises Inc., and chairman of the Illinois Restaurant Association, who has his headquarters in the 9th district. He and his family have contributed the maximum $4,800 to Mr. Pollak.
"The hospitality industry is the biggest employer in Illinois, and my partners and I have been lifelong Democrats," he said, but changed sides because "I can't stand here and tell you what health-care is going to cost."
Write to Elizabeth Williamson at elizabeth.williamson@wsj.com
OCTOBER 12, 2010
Business Backlash Grows
By ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON
VERNON HILLS, Ill.—Rick Woldenberg runs an educational-products company from a suburban Chicago office stacked with brightly colored toys. He supported President Barack Obama in 2008. But he has turned on Democrats this year.
Sally Ryan for The Wall Street Journal
Rick Woldenberg, chairman of Learning Resources in Chicago, backed President Barack Obama in 2008 but is now raising money for Republicans.
Mr. Woldenberg is angry that Congress and the Obama administration won't revise expansive new rules on lead testing in children's products that he says will kill his business, Learning Resources Inc. So he is raising money for Republicans among Chicago business owners to help the GOP—so much money that he is rattling the incumbent in what has been one of the safest Democratic seats in Mr. Obama's home state.
"If Democrats are going to put me out of business, I'm going to put them out of business first," he said.
Disaffected business owners like Mr. Woldenberg have emerged as a potent force in the 2010 campaign. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which plans to spend $75 million in this election cycle, says it has exceeded its targets for raising money from small businesses every quarter this year, despite the poor economy. More small-business candidates are running for public office than at any time in a generation, say officials at the National Federation of Independent Business, the capital's chief small-business lobby.
Business contributions are fueling campaign efforts by conservative and business groups, which are gearing up to spend as much as $300 million to help Republicans this fall.
Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats have wooed small-business owners with a series of tax breaks and a $30 billion lending program that was the centerpiece of a Small Business Jobs Act Mr. Obama signed last week at a White House ceremony attended by a group of supportive entrepreneurs.
But many small-business owners still fault Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats for what they see as a costly explosion of new rules and regulations.
"I think Obama ran as more of a moderate, and business people here are now realizing that this huge expansion of government is not sustainable," said Leo Dombrowski, an attorney at Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP in Chicago, whose clients are fighting new environmental rules.
Mr. Woldenberg has helped raise more than $470,000 for Joel Pollak, a 32-year old Harvard Law School graduate who is challenging Rep. Jan Schakowsky in Chicago's 9th district, a friend of Mr. Obama who is an author and ardent defender of the new children's-product lead law. That's 20 times more than any Republican has ever raised for a run against Ms. Schakowsky, who won 75% of the vote in the last election and is vying for a 7th term.
"This is a war," he said. "Individuals can make a difference, and I want my kids to see it."
Over the past few months, Mr. Pollak said, he and Mr. Woldenberg have been trying to tap into "donors residing outside the district with a strong business or personal motivation." The Pollak campaign scored a fundraising appearance by Republican economic policy star Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Mr. Pollak took the podium and pointed out Schakowsky campaign manager Alex Armour, who was in the crowd videotaping the event.
Ms. Schakowsky is polling at slightly more than 60%, according to her internal polls, a solid lead but narrower than in the past. The campaign has hired four field staffers for the first time, and is sending less money to Democrats in closer races.
"I'm not worried about it, but I'm taking it seriously," she said. Ms. Schakowsky said Mr. Woldenberg's success as a fundraiser, is proof that "very cynical … special interests are highly engaged in the campaign."
As for the lead law, she said she was proud of it. "The goal is to save children from toys that are toxic."
Mr. Woldenberg's efforts include addressing 130 people in a Holiday Inn ballroom in suburban Skokie, Ill., during Mr. Pollak's "Chicagoland Business Breakfast" in late September.
He held up a "box of rocks," the company's igneous rock collection kit, and read its new consumer warning.
"Caution: federal law requires us to advise that the rocks in this educational product may contain lead and might be harmful if swallowed,'" he read, to laughter.
"This is humiliating," he said, ticking off the costs of the law. "I'm hoping Joel can help us."
Two dozen attendees took the microphone, voicing concerns with health-care, tax, environmental and workplace rules. They included Jay Stieber, vice president of restaurant chain Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises Inc., and chairman of the Illinois Restaurant Association, who has his headquarters in the 9th district. He and his family have contributed the maximum $4,800 to Mr. Pollak.
"The hospitality industry is the biggest employer in Illinois, and my partners and I have been lifelong Democrats," he said, but changed sides because "I can't stand here and tell you what health-care is going to cost."
Write to Elizabeth Williamson at elizabeth.williamson@wsj.com
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Lenore Skenazy has a Few Things to Say about All Those CPSC Recalls
Lenore Skenazy who writes the Free Range Kids Blog, has an op-ed on Forbes.com about all those CPSC recalls (previously covered on this blog here and here).
She doesn't mince words.
Money quotes:
"And so it goes in the unbrave new world, where nothing is safe enough. It's a world brought to us by the once sane, now danger-hallucinating Consumer Product Safety Commission."
and
"[CPSC] actively engages in fear mongering, perhaps to give it something to do. After it rid the world of leaping lawnmowers and exploding frying pans, it turned its sights on the also-rans of corporate reprehensibility. The tricycle with a protruding screw. The stuffed animal whose button eyeball contains lead paint. And to remain relevant, it acts as if there is really no distinction between a bucking chain saw and a Little Tykes "choking hazard" the size of a salt shaker. And it just keeps getting more irrational."
Read the entire op-ed: "Students Aren't Allowed to Touch Real Rocks."
Posted by the Staff of the Alliance for Children's Product Safety
She doesn't mince words.
Money quotes:
"And so it goes in the unbrave new world, where nothing is safe enough. It's a world brought to us by the once sane, now danger-hallucinating Consumer Product Safety Commission."
and
"[CPSC] actively engages in fear mongering, perhaps to give it something to do. After it rid the world of leaping lawnmowers and exploding frying pans, it turned its sights on the also-rans of corporate reprehensibility. The tricycle with a protruding screw. The stuffed animal whose button eyeball contains lead paint. And to remain relevant, it acts as if there is really no distinction between a bucking chain saw and a Little Tykes "choking hazard" the size of a salt shaker. And it just keeps getting more irrational."
Read the entire op-ed: "Students Aren't Allowed to Touch Real Rocks."
Posted by the Staff of the Alliance for Children's Product Safety
Thursday, June 3, 2010
CPSIA - Casualty of the Week for June 1
The Alliance for Children's Product Safety's "CPSIA Casualty of the Week" highlights how the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is disrupting the U.S. marketplace in order to draw attention to the problems faced by small businesses, public institutions, consumers and others trying to comply with senseless and often contradictory provisions of the law. These provisions do nothing to improve product safety, but are driving small businesses out of the market.
Congress and the CPSC need to address the problems with CPSIA implementation to help small businesses by restoring "common sense" to our nation's product safety laws.
CPSIA Casualty of the Week for June 1, 2010:
CPSIA RULES! (THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF THEM)
Educational Products Market Overwhelmed by CPSIA-Mandated Testing and Paperwork
American Educational Products LLC (AMEP) is a Fort Collins, Colorado-based company selling classroom teaching aids like flash cards, animal models, globes and relief maps that educators rely on to teach their students. Despite a sterling safety record, AMEP President Michael Warring is worried that the ever-increasing amount of time that his company is spending on compliance with the CPSIA threatens the future of his company.
Warring explained, "We sold 5,600 different SKU's in 2009 to 2,600 different customers. Approximately 2,000 of these SKUs might be considered 'children's products', meaning that they must be tested by a third party for lead. My 64 employees and I are finding it virtually impossible to manage the scale of this CPSIA-mandated testing. Each SKU takes approximately eight hours a year in compliance and testing administration. This means that 24 of my 64 employees would need to work full-time, year-round just to ensure compliance with CPSIA – even though our supply chain controls effectively manage the risk of lead violations. I cannot afford a 37% increase in employees nor can I force 40 employees to do the work of 64. Neither alternative can be achieved."
Warring also said his company has lost business due to CPSIA.
"One customer cancelled a $5,000 custom rock order after deciding that rocks were too ‘dangerous’ for a geology lesson because of the CPSIA lead rules and elected to use posters instead," said Warring. "What caliber of young scientists are we nurturing in our country when we won’t let students touch and feel the textures, densities and hues of naturally-occurring rocks in a classroom? After all, kids pick up rocks outside the classroom every day. Our laws are scaring schools away from common sense choices about how our kids are educated."
He continued, "Another customer insisted that we use XRF scanning for lead-in-paint, a procedure not approved by the CPSC for compliance testing because XRF tests may produce erroneous results. We showed him independent test results that confirmed that our products were well within the CPSIA lead limits, but our inability to provide XRF testing resulted in the customer canceling orders worth about $35,000 to our company. Confusion reigns supreme – two years after passage of the CPSIA"
Warring fears that the CPSIA's senseless testing requirements and voluminous paperwork will mean that many of the 5,600 educational products that AMEP produces will disappear from the marketplace.
"As we offer fewer choices to the distributors we serve, our position as a vendor will deteriorate and our very viability in the marketplace could be at risk," said Warring.
Warring concluded, "I'm not sure how children's safety and well being is being addressed when their parents' livelihoods disappear and when their education is being limited to material in printed form. These are two of the many real consequences, intended or otherwise, that CPSIA has imposed on my company, my employees, the vendors we support, our customers, and the children we help to educate."
For additional information on the Alliance for Children's Product Safety and CPSIA, and to view previous "Casualties of the Week, visit http://www.AmendTheCPSIA.com.
Congress and the CPSC need to address the problems with CPSIA implementation to help small businesses by restoring "common sense" to our nation's product safety laws.
CPSIA Casualty of the Week for June 1, 2010:
CPSIA RULES! (THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF THEM)
Educational Products Market Overwhelmed by CPSIA-Mandated Testing and Paperwork
American Educational Products LLC (AMEP) is a Fort Collins, Colorado-based company selling classroom teaching aids like flash cards, animal models, globes and relief maps that educators rely on to teach their students. Despite a sterling safety record, AMEP President Michael Warring is worried that the ever-increasing amount of time that his company is spending on compliance with the CPSIA threatens the future of his company.
Warring explained, "We sold 5,600 different SKU's in 2009 to 2,600 different customers. Approximately 2,000 of these SKUs might be considered 'children's products', meaning that they must be tested by a third party for lead. My 64 employees and I are finding it virtually impossible to manage the scale of this CPSIA-mandated testing. Each SKU takes approximately eight hours a year in compliance and testing administration. This means that 24 of my 64 employees would need to work full-time, year-round just to ensure compliance with CPSIA – even though our supply chain controls effectively manage the risk of lead violations. I cannot afford a 37% increase in employees nor can I force 40 employees to do the work of 64. Neither alternative can be achieved."
Warring also said his company has lost business due to CPSIA.
"One customer cancelled a $5,000 custom rock order after deciding that rocks were too ‘dangerous’ for a geology lesson because of the CPSIA lead rules and elected to use posters instead," said Warring. "What caliber of young scientists are we nurturing in our country when we won’t let students touch and feel the textures, densities and hues of naturally-occurring rocks in a classroom? After all, kids pick up rocks outside the classroom every day. Our laws are scaring schools away from common sense choices about how our kids are educated."
He continued, "Another customer insisted that we use XRF scanning for lead-in-paint, a procedure not approved by the CPSC for compliance testing because XRF tests may produce erroneous results. We showed him independent test results that confirmed that our products were well within the CPSIA lead limits, but our inability to provide XRF testing resulted in the customer canceling orders worth about $35,000 to our company. Confusion reigns supreme – two years after passage of the CPSIA"
Warring fears that the CPSIA's senseless testing requirements and voluminous paperwork will mean that many of the 5,600 educational products that AMEP produces will disappear from the marketplace.
"As we offer fewer choices to the distributors we serve, our position as a vendor will deteriorate and our very viability in the marketplace could be at risk," said Warring.
Warring concluded, "I'm not sure how children's safety and well being is being addressed when their parents' livelihoods disappear and when their education is being limited to material in printed form. These are two of the many real consequences, intended or otherwise, that CPSIA has imposed on my company, my employees, the vendors we support, our customers, and the children we help to educate."
For additional information on the Alliance for Children's Product Safety and CPSIA, and to view previous "Casualties of the Week, visit http://www.AmendTheCPSIA.com.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
CPSIA - Consider the Source (Part II)
From an article in today's BNA entitled "Need for CPSIA Changes Debated",
"In an interview with BNA, Nancy Cowles, executive director of Kids in Danger, praised the commission's July decision on fashion jewelry accessories. Cowles told BNA that lead is a severe toxin with no safe level.
She added that while more common sense could be applied to determining which products are hazardous, consumers overall do not want products containing lead.
“People will come up with other ways to put [jewelry] on children's clothing that isn't toxic. Whether the lead [in rhinestones] leaches out fully, it's hard to know, but we don't want lead in our children's products. We will come up with other ways to decorate our clothes,” Cowles said."
There are other quotes from consumer groups in this article that set my blood ablaze, but I thought this one deserves special "heralding".
I should note that I have written about rhinestones extensively, and debunked the opinion expressed by the estimable Ms. Cowles thoroughly. [See my "Jewelry" tags.] You may wonder, why do I care so much about rhinestones. Our business does not use rhinestones, so what's the big deal for me? Rhinestones is a poster child for the stupidity of the law. The impact of the CPSIA on rhinestones is the impact that is bedeviling the entire children's product industry, from toys to books to shoes to bedding to what-have-you. If rhinestones go down, safe as they are, we all go down. If we can save rhinestones on a rational and fair basis, perhaps the rest of us will get fairer treatment.
That said, I have a couple comments on Ms. Cowles' remarks. First of all, she is fear mongering, not advocating for you and your children. She says rhinestones are "toxic" - I say "prove it". The people behind the CPSIA are left with few options to save their precious law but to deceive the general public about health risks. The case on rhinestones is out there to be examined by Ms. Cowles. Why not attack rhinestones with data and analysis? Because no data or analysis exists to weaken the case FOR rhinestones. The "there's no safe level of lead" mantra is faulty. We already consume plenty of lead in our air, our food and our water daily. The rationale that trace presence of lead in children's products is somehow the health "tipping point" has never been proven and frankly cannot be asserted on a reasoned, scientific basis. The lead we consume in our normal daily activities dwarfs the lead you might ingest from casual contact with children's products. If there really is "no safe level for lead", then our wise Congress should attack the big sources of lead first, and leave the rest of us for later.
Second, Ms. Cowles is sending a lot of people down the river with her casual condemnation of rhinestones. I would note that many industries use rhinestones in their products. The people who run those companies, are employed by those companies, are supported by income from those companies, trade with those companies or value those products in their lives, will ALL lose if the likes of Ms. Cowles get to run our society. Does that make ANY sense to ANYONE (besides Ms. Cowles)?
I keep thinking of the prescription she offers for living a safe and wondrous life. She says we will (and should) find something else to decorate our products with. Perhaps Ms. Cowles decorates herself with the jewels from Pretty, Pretty Princess. That's what she is suggesting, that we get used to plastic jewelry. Perhaps Ms. Cowles can live with getting gifts for her kids from a vending machine, but that's not how I want to live. As I have noted before, inexpensive stones are a way for people to bedeck kids with jewelry inexpensively. Rhinestones are important to a lot of people, some of whom may not have the economic wherewithal to switch to diamonds and rubies. In addition, it's an inexpensive way to let little kids have a bit of bling. If you are trying to make your little kids look special for social, cultural or religious reasons, I think Palladium earrings may be somewhat impractical for most people. Little kids to tend to outgrow their clothing and shoes quickly. Parents can't really afford to buy and rebuy clothing and jewelry using precious stones as their kids grow, and may never warm up to Pretty, Pretty Princess jewelry. If this is the way it has to be, I think we should think more insightfully about who is writing the rules for our society.
Increasingly, the recommendations of consumer advocates are ringing more and more hollow. How crazy has the world become? Consider this quote from the November 2008 "Trouble in Toyland" report issued by the Vermont PIRG:
"Some children’s toys, jewelry and cosmetics may contain toxic chemicals, especially lead and toxic phthalates. . . . PHTHALATES AND OTHER CHEMICALS Avoid toys made of PVC plastic; which often contains phthalate softeners. Choose unpainted wooden or cloth toys instead."
Yes, PIRG wants us to use cloth toys and plain unpainted wooden toys to be "safe". But how "safe" are these toys? The CPSC, after due consideration, has informed us in their new phthalates testing standard: "Examples of materials that do not normally contain phthalates and, therefore, might not require testing or certification are . . . Natural wood [and] Textiles made from natural fibers, such as cotton or wool . . . ." Uh-oh! PIRG is telling you to buy products that MIGHT contain phthalates! Ouch. [To be fair, I have no idea how phthalates would get in there, but heck, the CPSC says they MIGHT. They must know something I don't.]
So PIRG has it wrong - we can't even play with cloth toys or wood. What's left? Rocks. Oh, no - rocks need to be tested for lead, phthalates and sharp points! Well, perhaps after the Residential Rock Roundup is wrapped up, we will all be safe to move into caves to play with our rocks. Ms. Cowles, get your own cave - you can't play with my rocks.
"In an interview with BNA, Nancy Cowles, executive director of Kids in Danger, praised the commission's July decision on fashion jewelry accessories. Cowles told BNA that lead is a severe toxin with no safe level.
She added that while more common sense could be applied to determining which products are hazardous, consumers overall do not want products containing lead.
“People will come up with other ways to put [jewelry] on children's clothing that isn't toxic. Whether the lead [in rhinestones] leaches out fully, it's hard to know, but we don't want lead in our children's products. We will come up with other ways to decorate our clothes,” Cowles said."
There are other quotes from consumer groups in this article that set my blood ablaze, but I thought this one deserves special "heralding".
I should note that I have written about rhinestones extensively, and debunked the opinion expressed by the estimable Ms. Cowles thoroughly. [See my "Jewelry" tags.] You may wonder, why do I care so much about rhinestones. Our business does not use rhinestones, so what's the big deal for me? Rhinestones is a poster child for the stupidity of the law. The impact of the CPSIA on rhinestones is the impact that is bedeviling the entire children's product industry, from toys to books to shoes to bedding to what-have-you. If rhinestones go down, safe as they are, we all go down. If we can save rhinestones on a rational and fair basis, perhaps the rest of us will get fairer treatment.
That said, I have a couple comments on Ms. Cowles' remarks. First of all, she is fear mongering, not advocating for you and your children. She says rhinestones are "toxic" - I say "prove it". The people behind the CPSIA are left with few options to save their precious law but to deceive the general public about health risks. The case on rhinestones is out there to be examined by Ms. Cowles. Why not attack rhinestones with data and analysis? Because no data or analysis exists to weaken the case FOR rhinestones. The "there's no safe level of lead" mantra is faulty. We already consume plenty of lead in our air, our food and our water daily. The rationale that trace presence of lead in children's products is somehow the health "tipping point" has never been proven and frankly cannot be asserted on a reasoned, scientific basis. The lead we consume in our normal daily activities dwarfs the lead you might ingest from casual contact with children's products. If there really is "no safe level for lead", then our wise Congress should attack the big sources of lead first, and leave the rest of us for later.
Second, Ms. Cowles is sending a lot of people down the river with her casual condemnation of rhinestones. I would note that many industries use rhinestones in their products. The people who run those companies, are employed by those companies, are supported by income from those companies, trade with those companies or value those products in their lives, will ALL lose if the likes of Ms. Cowles get to run our society. Does that make ANY sense to ANYONE (besides Ms. Cowles)?
I keep thinking of the prescription she offers for living a safe and wondrous life. She says we will (and should) find something else to decorate our products with. Perhaps Ms. Cowles decorates herself with the jewels from Pretty, Pretty Princess. That's what she is suggesting, that we get used to plastic jewelry. Perhaps Ms. Cowles can live with getting gifts for her kids from a vending machine, but that's not how I want to live. As I have noted before, inexpensive stones are a way for people to bedeck kids with jewelry inexpensively. Rhinestones are important to a lot of people, some of whom may not have the economic wherewithal to switch to diamonds and rubies. In addition, it's an inexpensive way to let little kids have a bit of bling. If you are trying to make your little kids look special for social, cultural or religious reasons, I think Palladium earrings may be somewhat impractical for most people. Little kids to tend to outgrow their clothing and shoes quickly. Parents can't really afford to buy and rebuy clothing and jewelry using precious stones as their kids grow, and may never warm up to Pretty, Pretty Princess jewelry. If this is the way it has to be, I think we should think more insightfully about who is writing the rules for our society.
Increasingly, the recommendations of consumer advocates are ringing more and more hollow. How crazy has the world become? Consider this quote from the November 2008 "Trouble in Toyland" report issued by the Vermont PIRG:
"Some children’s toys, jewelry and cosmetics may contain toxic chemicals, especially lead and toxic phthalates. . . . PHTHALATES AND OTHER CHEMICALS Avoid toys made of PVC plastic; which often contains phthalate softeners. Choose unpainted wooden or cloth toys instead."
Yes, PIRG wants us to use cloth toys and plain unpainted wooden toys to be "safe". But how "safe" are these toys? The CPSC, after due consideration, has informed us in their new phthalates testing standard: "Examples of materials that do not normally contain phthalates and, therefore, might not require testing or certification are . . . Natural wood [and] Textiles made from natural fibers, such as cotton or wool . . . ." Uh-oh! PIRG is telling you to buy products that MIGHT contain phthalates! Ouch. [To be fair, I have no idea how phthalates would get in there, but heck, the CPSC says they MIGHT. They must know something I don't.]
So PIRG has it wrong - we can't even play with cloth toys or wood. What's left? Rocks. Oh, no - rocks need to be tested for lead, phthalates and sharp points! Well, perhaps after the Residential Rock Roundup is wrapped up, we will all be safe to move into caves to play with our rocks. Ms. Cowles, get your own cave - you can't play with my rocks.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
CPSIA - More "Kudos" for CPSC's Resale Roundup Program
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published a nice article on the noxious Resale Roundup entitled "Garage Sales Could Land You In Jail". Apparently, I am not the only one who sees something dark in this PR blitz-driven program designed to root out recalled items from resellers in stores and online. As pointed out by one of my commenters, the real issue for regulators in the resale of recalled items is not the onesies and twosies at resale stores or Craigslist.com - it is the inventory liquidators who might be pedalling large volumes of these items. Of course, if there are items of special concern, like a particular recalled crib, then the CPSC should invest in educating (not terrifying) the resale outlets to keep them off the market. The presumption that members of the business community cannot be trusted to work with a well-intentioned agency with realistic goals is a sad reflection of the current anti-business atmosphere that the Pelosi-Waxman-Obamites are fomenting.
However, the Resale Roundup is exactly the kind of grandstanding likely to become a favorite trick of the "new" CPSC. After all, promoting their "vigorous" enforcement of the CPSIA to a rabid media and equally rabid Democratic majority leadership seems to be a major objective of the agency nowadays. The supposed "crisis of confidence" of the American public is the stuff of their press releases, not reality.
It's ironic, then, that the CPSC seems to be annoyed by my observation that rocks and fossils need to be tested for lead and sharp points under the new law. You'd think they would be proud of this as it is required as part of a vigorous enforcement of their nifty new law. Yes, if I sell rocks to schools or as part of an educational toy, these natural materials are subject to the same excessive safety rules as injection-molded toys or painted wooden trains. So we must pay a lot of money to test rocks for "safety", and in fact, have actually had to redesign products when a test report came back with an idiotic "fail" for sharp points. [These test reports are doubly infuriating because natural materials vary piece to piece. Testing a sample is no indication of the compliance of rest of the units - you would have to test each one to know for sure that they all comply. But the law wants us to get the little piece of paper, so we buy the little piece of paper.] Find me some mica or fool's gold without sharp points, please. Nah, let's just learn as much as possible from smooth stones good for skipping.
With all this in mind, I suggest that the CPSC take the opportunity to start a new program called Residential Rock Roundup. Why draw the safety "line" at rocks that are sold to schools or as educational toys? Frankly, most rocks are found not in boxes on store shelves but on the ground. I know that's shocking, but it's true! Surely those plentiful rocks present a much greater risk of childhood lead poisoning or sharp points than our boxed sets. As Rachel Weintraub of CFA has instructed us, it is "absurd" to suppose that we can be sure about anything without testing. And, of course, you can't be too safe, either.
I think the CPSC should send its newly-expanded cadre of field inspectors out into the neighborhoods to gather up and test every rock they can find. Some rocks may also fit into a choke tube and if suitable for children under three, would need to be impounded to keep kids safe from choking hazards. Only an expert like a CPSC field inspector would know which rocks present this kind of deadly risk. No doubt this kind of outreach will impress everyone and demonstrate the CPSC's commitment to keep kids safe, so so safe. Now that I have learned that rocks and fossils may cause lead poisoning (the victims are presumably the same kids chowing down on rhinestones, tasty!) or might cause lacerations from their sharp points, I do not know how the CPSC can tolerate rocks littering the United States that have not been tested. Perhaps the CPSC should also "sequester" some national parks deemed too "rocky" and therefore a danger to children. I also hope the agency will call for all Americans to voluntarily send their rocks in for testing - just to be safe.
If you can think of some other programs that the CPSC should start - to keep us all safe - feel free to leave a comment!
However, the Resale Roundup is exactly the kind of grandstanding likely to become a favorite trick of the "new" CPSC. After all, promoting their "vigorous" enforcement of the CPSIA to a rabid media and equally rabid Democratic majority leadership seems to be a major objective of the agency nowadays. The supposed "crisis of confidence" of the American public is the stuff of their press releases, not reality.
It's ironic, then, that the CPSC seems to be annoyed by my observation that rocks and fossils need to be tested for lead and sharp points under the new law. You'd think they would be proud of this as it is required as part of a vigorous enforcement of their nifty new law. Yes, if I sell rocks to schools or as part of an educational toy, these natural materials are subject to the same excessive safety rules as injection-molded toys or painted wooden trains. So we must pay a lot of money to test rocks for "safety", and in fact, have actually had to redesign products when a test report came back with an idiotic "fail" for sharp points. [These test reports are doubly infuriating because natural materials vary piece to piece. Testing a sample is no indication of the compliance of rest of the units - you would have to test each one to know for sure that they all comply. But the law wants us to get the little piece of paper, so we buy the little piece of paper.] Find me some mica or fool's gold without sharp points, please. Nah, let's just learn as much as possible from smooth stones good for skipping.
With all this in mind, I suggest that the CPSC take the opportunity to start a new program called Residential Rock Roundup. Why draw the safety "line" at rocks that are sold to schools or as educational toys? Frankly, most rocks are found not in boxes on store shelves but on the ground. I know that's shocking, but it's true! Surely those plentiful rocks present a much greater risk of childhood lead poisoning or sharp points than our boxed sets. As Rachel Weintraub of CFA has instructed us, it is "absurd" to suppose that we can be sure about anything without testing. And, of course, you can't be too safe, either.
I think the CPSC should send its newly-expanded cadre of field inspectors out into the neighborhoods to gather up and test every rock they can find. Some rocks may also fit into a choke tube and if suitable for children under three, would need to be impounded to keep kids safe from choking hazards. Only an expert like a CPSC field inspector would know which rocks present this kind of deadly risk. No doubt this kind of outreach will impress everyone and demonstrate the CPSC's commitment to keep kids safe, so so safe. Now that I have learned that rocks and fossils may cause lead poisoning (the victims are presumably the same kids chowing down on rhinestones, tasty!) or might cause lacerations from their sharp points, I do not know how the CPSC can tolerate rocks littering the United States that have not been tested. Perhaps the CPSC should also "sequester" some national parks deemed too "rocky" and therefore a danger to children. I also hope the agency will call for all Americans to voluntarily send their rocks in for testing - just to be safe.
If you can think of some other programs that the CPSC should start - to keep us all safe - feel free to leave a comment!
Friday, August 7, 2009
CPSIA - Riffing on Rocks
Now that rocks must be tested (by us humans, not by their manufacturer, the Almighty) for compliance with lead standards, it's also necessary to make sure they comply with ASTM F963. In another magnificent gift to mankind, Congress elected to convert ASTM F963, a perfectly good and workable voluntary safety standard into law as part of the CPSIA. This wasn't necessary. As Chairman Tenenbaum noted in her recent APEC speech: "The U.S. experience with safety standards has been that you get a great deal of product safety by relying on voluntary consensus standards coupled with regulatory authority to intervene quickly. In fact, my agency's statutes set a preference for voluntary standards over mandatory regulations. This places a lot of responsibility on industry." Imagine, another sign of excess in Congress' handiwork . . . .
Congress' grand gesture also wasn't helpful. Violations of the formerly voluntary standard now require an urgent report to be filed within 24 hours under Section 15(b). Let's be clear, ANY violation of ANY provision of just about ANY product safety law requires the emergency filing of a report to the CPSC as though the world is coming to an end. There is no materiality standard. In my next lifetime, please do not assign me to the department responsible for processing Section 15(b) filings at the CPSC.
Rocks, you may realize, are included in school science kits and also in toys. Once upon a time, we used rocks to learn about the environment and nature. Rocks happen to be present in our environment, no fault of ours but perhaps the Almighty had some purpose in mind. I imagine He thought rocks would inspire some kind of really cool law. And it did! In this case, if foolish educational companies want to sell rocks to schools or for inclusion in educational kits sold in toy stores, they must now test the rocks not only for lead but also for sharp points. Yes, rocks with sharp points need to be restricted under ASTM F963 for children aged eight years old or younger. The CPSC has yet to issue guidance to millions of curious Americans on how to manage this exposure when walking to the park or playing catch with the dog in the backyard.
Think of rocks you have seen. There are skipping rocks, those don't have sharp points. Those are kosher, presumably, if they pass the lead test. Other rocks, like shale, mica, magnetite, etc., are a bit more ragged in appearance, not to mention being dicey legally. They will probably fail the "sharp points" test under F963. Not only does that make them illegal, but it also could potentially trigger a Section 15(b) report and thereby a recall of the rocks. If you sell rocks for a living or as part of an educational business, how do you react to this kind of rule? Some options: (a) retool your kit around smooth stones (forget the educational value), (b) hand pick "good" rocks for each kit or sand the rocks down, (c) sell posters or picture cards of rocks, or (d) I have no idea what.
Rock suppliers cannot guarantee that rocks won't have sharp edges. They are rocks, after all. Suppliers will also swallow hard before testing rocks in a laboratory. It will be hard for them to deal with snickering employees of testing labs quoting on the latest load of rock tests, not to mention paying the bill. Many will just skip the tests and possibly the entire market. Posters will be our means of teaching Earth Science. I am sure the Chinese, Japanese and Germans are having a good laugh about the self-destruction we are merrily implementing to their benefit.
And if you have a problem, what are you supposed to do with all the deadly rocks? It would certainly not be very public-spirited to put such dangerous items in the city dump. Perhaps we should send them to Congress?
Is there a testing standard for rocks in the head? Is the concern lead, sharp points or that irritating rattling noise? I certainly hope there are vigorous use and abuse tests for rocks in the head - perhaps all the shaking might make somebody wake up.
Congress' grand gesture also wasn't helpful. Violations of the formerly voluntary standard now require an urgent report to be filed within 24 hours under Section 15(b). Let's be clear, ANY violation of ANY provision of just about ANY product safety law requires the emergency filing of a report to the CPSC as though the world is coming to an end. There is no materiality standard. In my next lifetime, please do not assign me to the department responsible for processing Section 15(b) filings at the CPSC.
Rocks, you may realize, are included in school science kits and also in toys. Once upon a time, we used rocks to learn about the environment and nature. Rocks happen to be present in our environment, no fault of ours but perhaps the Almighty had some purpose in mind. I imagine He thought rocks would inspire some kind of really cool law. And it did! In this case, if foolish educational companies want to sell rocks to schools or for inclusion in educational kits sold in toy stores, they must now test the rocks not only for lead but also for sharp points. Yes, rocks with sharp points need to be restricted under ASTM F963 for children aged eight years old or younger. The CPSC has yet to issue guidance to millions of curious Americans on how to manage this exposure when walking to the park or playing catch with the dog in the backyard.
Think of rocks you have seen. There are skipping rocks, those don't have sharp points. Those are kosher, presumably, if they pass the lead test. Other rocks, like shale, mica, magnetite, etc., are a bit more ragged in appearance, not to mention being dicey legally. They will probably fail the "sharp points" test under F963. Not only does that make them illegal, but it also could potentially trigger a Section 15(b) report and thereby a recall of the rocks. If you sell rocks for a living or as part of an educational business, how do you react to this kind of rule? Some options: (a) retool your kit around smooth stones (forget the educational value), (b) hand pick "good" rocks for each kit or sand the rocks down, (c) sell posters or picture cards of rocks, or (d) I have no idea what.
Rock suppliers cannot guarantee that rocks won't have sharp edges. They are rocks, after all. Suppliers will also swallow hard before testing rocks in a laboratory. It will be hard for them to deal with snickering employees of testing labs quoting on the latest load of rock tests, not to mention paying the bill. Many will just skip the tests and possibly the entire market. Posters will be our means of teaching Earth Science. I am sure the Chinese, Japanese and Germans are having a good laugh about the self-destruction we are merrily implementing to their benefit.
And if you have a problem, what are you supposed to do with all the deadly rocks? It would certainly not be very public-spirited to put such dangerous items in the city dump. Perhaps we should send them to Congress?
Is there a testing standard for rocks in the head? Is the concern lead, sharp points or that irritating rattling noise? I certainly hope there are vigorous use and abuse tests for rocks in the head - perhaps all the shaking might make somebody wake up.
Monday, May 25, 2009
CPSIA - Dents in the Education Market
The impact of the CPSIA on the educational market is getting more and more worrisome. Two recent events shocked me for their implications. First, Michael Warring of American Educational Products reports that a school opted to stop using AmEP's rocks to teach Earth Science and will instead rely on a POSTER. Not quite the same educational experience . . . . Yes, the school has become convinced that rocks are too dangerous for kids to touch. Before you laugh too hard, just remember it might be your school district that made this choice. In a "fear of everything" world, this kind of ridiculous decision-making will be more and more common. The continued ragging of consumer groups about "toxic toys" sullies the reputation of all good companies and their good products. In this case, rocks take on the "toxic" tag because they contain uncontrollable amounts of base elements found in nature. If only we could create laws to restrain Mother Nature!
I wish teaching Earth Science by way of a poster was my biggest concern. I have been on record for a long time worrying about how Science would be treated under this terrible law. For many reasons, science items are particularly exposed. That does not mean they are dangerous - their record for safe use is sterling - but under the rigid and unthinking arbitrary standards of the CPSIA, they are verboten, whether it makes sense or not. Up to now, perhaps you thought this issue was simply a product of my feverish imagination. Then comes along the Potato Clock. This clever product can be purchased from more than one source, and is also a DIY home science project, perfect for Science Fairs. Please note that the homemade Potato Clock utilizes "dangerous" items like nails, clips, wire, batteries, etc. Welcome to science education . . . .
Anyhow, recently a manufacturer of the Potato Clock decided to test its version for compliance with the newfangled CPSIA. In their eager beaver-ness, they shot themselves in the foot, discovering (horrors) that the insulation on the product's potato wires contain trace amounts of lead over the arbitrary limits of CPSIA. Not that anyone has ever been hurt from wire insulation (at least not from nibbling on it). Unfortunately, safety is the least of anyone's concerns under the CPSIA.
The actual knowledge of the product's testing failure precipitated the kind of CPSIA horror story that has been interfering with my sleep for months. First, the company decided that since it now knew of the test failure, it had an immediate reporting obligation under CPSIA Section 15(b). In addition, they concluded they had an obligation to immediately stop sale, since continuing to sell would be another "knowing" violation - yes, kids, that's a felony with possible penalties of jail time and asset forfeiture (goodbye house and car!).
Presumably, the executives at this company could not imagine going to jail for selling Potato Clocks as they had for years, but heck, Congress writes the rules. The CPSC, apparently, upon receiving this (unwanted) 15(b) report concurred - yep, the wire insulation exceeds the standard, and yep, you have to stop sale. No recall was required by the CPSC BUT the company appears to have decided almost immediately that an informal recall was mandated. Why might they have decided such a thing? Well, perhaps they had a generalized fear of liability from dealers who might be sued for selling this "dangerous" device if it ever came to light that the product had impermissible lead in the wire insulation. That seemingly uncontrollable situation forced the company's hand and despite the fact that the CPSC had no interest in a recall, the company sent out letters demanding that dealers immediately stop sale and return the devices to the company.
Okay, what's the problem? Aren't we all "safer" now that this "scourge" has been removed from store shelves? Well, hold on a moment. First of all, the product is not even theoretically considered "dangerous". This is a classic example of a hyper-technical violation of the CPSIA that entraps innocent and useful products. It's not a question of safety for anyone, including the CPSC, the company - and you. Stopping sale of this item made NO ONE SAFER - it only made the company poorer and left schools with less equipment to teach science.
There are some huge problems here. First, please note that this series of unfortunate events was driven by a well-intentioned company trying to comply with the law. Their reward - losses in the tens of thousands of dollars. Second, after learning that no good deed goes unpunished, the company began to think in terms of possible liabilities. With "actual knowledge" being irrefutable, the liability exposure under the law by acting sensibly skyrocketed, compelling the company to act self-destructively. Thus, the company imposed a recall on itself for a product everyone acknowledges is safe, removing it from schools and homes. Third, the company went further than the regulators demanded, all to minimize its exposure to lawsuits and possible criminal charges - for selling a Potato Clock. There is no way to stop this chain of events under this draconian law - ask yourself what you would have done. This story is going to be EVERYONE'S story soon. Get used to the idea.
But the WORST part of this story, the most chilling, is the part about the wire insulation. The Potato Clock was recalled for having too much lead in the wire insulation. Why did it have lead in it at all? Wire insulation contains lead because it is recycled vinyl, probably recovered principally from scrap of other wire. Remember, recycling is good for our planet, and responsible companies try to use recycled materials whenever possible. Only virgin vinyl can be certified lead-free. A switchover to virgin vinyl insulation would be very costly and would means that the old vinyl wouldn't be recycled anymore. That won't happen.
The real problem comes from the fact that the Potato Clock utilizes "ordinary" wire. Everyone and everything utilizes "ordinary" wire. No specially-coated wire is used in children's products and even if it were available, it would be too expensive for this kind of application. Potato Clocks should use "ordinary" wire. If ordinary wire will always fail the CPSIA standards because of its insulation, then everything using wire in schools can't be sold for use by children under 13 years of age. This means, among other things, no electricity education before the 7th grade in this country (and only for the 13 year olds in the room - the 12 year olds will have to leave the room until their birthday). Call me crazy, but I think that's bad public policy. I am not aware that teaching basic science is illegal in China, India, Germany, Australia, Canada, etc. Only in the land of idiots is a rule like this possible.
This will not be the end of the devastation of science education in this country. I have previously noted that microscope light bulbs have a little dot of solder on their base that will fail the lead tests. That means no more light for our school microscopes. Oh well. Other items commonly used for science education include fasteners (nails, screws and bobby pins), wire, magnets, rocks, glass and crystals, metal cups, aluminum foil, steel wool, switches, solar panels, lab equipment like thermometers, scales and ceramic ware, motors, aquariums - the list goes on and on. These items won't make it under the CPSIA for many reasons, some economic and some physical. NONE of them will fail because they are unsafe or because they have poisoned children in schools. Still, American elementary science education will be severely damaged thanks to your friends in Congress.
Given the light and uneven resistance to this law by the general public, I wonder at what point people will start to doubt the "wisdom" of their Congressional leaders on their fancy new safety scheme. I have spoken to members of the press who became interested in the CPSIA issue when their school book fair outlawed the sale of used books (no doubt in homage to Thomas Moore's advice to sequester old books until they are proven "safe"). What about everyone else? Perhaps when people realize their kids are learning about rocks from pictures (to keep them safe!) and are not allowed to have direct, hands-on science experiences until Congress deems it safe (in the 7th or 8th grade, depending on the date of your child's birth), they might start asking a few probing questions. It's about time.
There's no excuse for this. Rise up, America, before Congress allows this law to rot out your educational system!
I wish teaching Earth Science by way of a poster was my biggest concern. I have been on record for a long time worrying about how Science would be treated under this terrible law. For many reasons, science items are particularly exposed. That does not mean they are dangerous - their record for safe use is sterling - but under the rigid and unthinking arbitrary standards of the CPSIA, they are verboten, whether it makes sense or not. Up to now, perhaps you thought this issue was simply a product of my feverish imagination. Then comes along the Potato Clock. This clever product can be purchased from more than one source, and is also a DIY home science project, perfect for Science Fairs. Please note that the homemade Potato Clock utilizes "dangerous" items like nails, clips, wire, batteries, etc. Welcome to science education . . . .
Anyhow, recently a manufacturer of the Potato Clock decided to test its version for compliance with the newfangled CPSIA. In their eager beaver-ness, they shot themselves in the foot, discovering (horrors) that the insulation on the product's potato wires contain trace amounts of lead over the arbitrary limits of CPSIA. Not that anyone has ever been hurt from wire insulation (at least not from nibbling on it). Unfortunately, safety is the least of anyone's concerns under the CPSIA.
The actual knowledge of the product's testing failure precipitated the kind of CPSIA horror story that has been interfering with my sleep for months. First, the company decided that since it now knew of the test failure, it had an immediate reporting obligation under CPSIA Section 15(b). In addition, they concluded they had an obligation to immediately stop sale, since continuing to sell would be another "knowing" violation - yes, kids, that's a felony with possible penalties of jail time and asset forfeiture (goodbye house and car!).
Presumably, the executives at this company could not imagine going to jail for selling Potato Clocks as they had for years, but heck, Congress writes the rules. The CPSC, apparently, upon receiving this (unwanted) 15(b) report concurred - yep, the wire insulation exceeds the standard, and yep, you have to stop sale. No recall was required by the CPSC BUT the company appears to have decided almost immediately that an informal recall was mandated. Why might they have decided such a thing? Well, perhaps they had a generalized fear of liability from dealers who might be sued for selling this "dangerous" device if it ever came to light that the product had impermissible lead in the wire insulation. That seemingly uncontrollable situation forced the company's hand and despite the fact that the CPSC had no interest in a recall, the company sent out letters demanding that dealers immediately stop sale and return the devices to the company.
Okay, what's the problem? Aren't we all "safer" now that this "scourge" has been removed from store shelves? Well, hold on a moment. First of all, the product is not even theoretically considered "dangerous". This is a classic example of a hyper-technical violation of the CPSIA that entraps innocent and useful products. It's not a question of safety for anyone, including the CPSC, the company - and you. Stopping sale of this item made NO ONE SAFER - it only made the company poorer and left schools with less equipment to teach science.
There are some huge problems here. First, please note that this series of unfortunate events was driven by a well-intentioned company trying to comply with the law. Their reward - losses in the tens of thousands of dollars. Second, after learning that no good deed goes unpunished, the company began to think in terms of possible liabilities. With "actual knowledge" being irrefutable, the liability exposure under the law by acting sensibly skyrocketed, compelling the company to act self-destructively. Thus, the company imposed a recall on itself for a product everyone acknowledges is safe, removing it from schools and homes. Third, the company went further than the regulators demanded, all to minimize its exposure to lawsuits and possible criminal charges - for selling a Potato Clock. There is no way to stop this chain of events under this draconian law - ask yourself what you would have done. This story is going to be EVERYONE'S story soon. Get used to the idea.
But the WORST part of this story, the most chilling, is the part about the wire insulation. The Potato Clock was recalled for having too much lead in the wire insulation. Why did it have lead in it at all? Wire insulation contains lead because it is recycled vinyl, probably recovered principally from scrap of other wire. Remember, recycling is good for our planet, and responsible companies try to use recycled materials whenever possible. Only virgin vinyl can be certified lead-free. A switchover to virgin vinyl insulation would be very costly and would means that the old vinyl wouldn't be recycled anymore. That won't happen.
The real problem comes from the fact that the Potato Clock utilizes "ordinary" wire. Everyone and everything utilizes "ordinary" wire. No specially-coated wire is used in children's products and even if it were available, it would be too expensive for this kind of application. Potato Clocks should use "ordinary" wire. If ordinary wire will always fail the CPSIA standards because of its insulation, then everything using wire in schools can't be sold for use by children under 13 years of age. This means, among other things, no electricity education before the 7th grade in this country (and only for the 13 year olds in the room - the 12 year olds will have to leave the room until their birthday). Call me crazy, but I think that's bad public policy. I am not aware that teaching basic science is illegal in China, India, Germany, Australia, Canada, etc. Only in the land of idiots is a rule like this possible.
This will not be the end of the devastation of science education in this country. I have previously noted that microscope light bulbs have a little dot of solder on their base that will fail the lead tests. That means no more light for our school microscopes. Oh well. Other items commonly used for science education include fasteners (nails, screws and bobby pins), wire, magnets, rocks, glass and crystals, metal cups, aluminum foil, steel wool, switches, solar panels, lab equipment like thermometers, scales and ceramic ware, motors, aquariums - the list goes on and on. These items won't make it under the CPSIA for many reasons, some economic and some physical. NONE of them will fail because they are unsafe or because they have poisoned children in schools. Still, American elementary science education will be severely damaged thanks to your friends in Congress.
Given the light and uneven resistance to this law by the general public, I wonder at what point people will start to doubt the "wisdom" of their Congressional leaders on their fancy new safety scheme. I have spoken to members of the press who became interested in the CPSIA issue when their school book fair outlawed the sale of used books (no doubt in homage to Thomas Moore's advice to sequester old books until they are proven "safe"). What about everyone else? Perhaps when people realize their kids are learning about rocks from pictures (to keep them safe!) and are not allowed to have direct, hands-on science experiences until Congress deems it safe (in the 7th or 8th grade, depending on the date of your child's birth), they might start asking a few probing questions. It's about time.
There's no excuse for this. Rise up, America, before Congress allows this law to rot out your educational system!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
