GUEST BLOG – BOSTON GLOBE WRITER TAKES NOTICE OF ALL THOSE CPSC RECALLS

Rick has blogged in this space about how the onslaught of recalls by the CPSC is numbing to consumers. Boston Globe writer Sylvia Pagán Westphal has taken notice in a column over the weekend:

Boston Globe

The safety scare
Separate dangerous products from those that pose little risk
By Sylvia Pagán Westphal | July 7, 2010

IF YOU’RE the parent of a young child and want to be very scared, don’t waste time looking for horror movies on TV. Just go to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission’s website for child product recalls. You won’t be able to sleep for days.

The site features an interminable selection of common children’s products that have been recalled. Some of the depictions are downright gruesome: in cases of defective cribs, for example, there are pictures of baby dolls with necks pinned down between rails, or of their little faces pressed against a mattress, as if suffocating. The intent is, to be sure — for I see no other reason to scare the wits out of an unsuspecting, Internet-roaming mother — to jolt parents into action if they own one of the products.

One recent afternoon, I was clicking through the recalls page when I realized, to my dismay, that during my 9-year stint as a parent I have owned several of the featured items. My colorful rainforest-themed baby swing was there, and so was one of my cribs. The baby sling I used with my son was recalled after three babies suffocated in 2009. The kinds of bath seats I used (and loved) with my daughter aren’t sold anymore, following various recalls.

I never found out about these announcements. Had I taken the time to register each product I might have heard from the manufacturers, but I didn’t do it, and neither do most of the parents I know. Some pediatricians’ offices and stores post selected recall sheets, and there is an e-mail list from Consumer Product Safety Commission one can opt into, but with over 100 of these announcements per year it’s hard to keep track of the information.

Part of the problem is that recall announcements don’t explicitly distinguish between problems with products that are truly dangerous and defective versus products with sub-optimal design that, when used properly, pose little risk. For example, the commission recently recalled a bed because one child got his head stuck in its storage compartment. Not to take away from that kid’s pain, but I have numerous compartments in my home where my children’s heads would fit if they tried hard enough.

In a way, some of the announcements appear to be directed at shielding us from our own parental incompetence. Millions of baby bath seats and walkers are no longer sold due to drownings and falls suffered by babies who were basically left unsupervised. The recent high-profile recalls of drop-side cribs were prompted by deaths that, in some cases, were caused by cribs that were incorrectly put together or were subjected to shoddy home repairs.

Don’t get me wrong: to the extent that these recalls remove poorly designed products from the market the efforts should be praised. If motels and hotels are forced to carry safer cribs, that’s a good thing. But the Consumer Product Safety Commission and other safety advocacy groups should be mindful of putting each recall into perspective, so as not to unnecessarily scare the public. For example, the multiple recalls (and likely national ban) on drop-side cribs comes after 32 documented deaths over the last 10 years and millions of cribs sold. That’s surely 32 deaths too many, but more children die each year choking on food.

There is a real downside to a system that feeds into our nation’s growing safety paranoia, which isn’t healthy either. Many of my overseas friends have a hard time understanding our obsession with safety — we put locks on our toilet seats, cover the corners of tables with rubber guards, and use hand sanitizer with ever-intensifying zeal. Taking that baby walker away, just like covering the table corners, is a bit like avoiding air travel for fear of crashing, while still driving a car every day. The world is a very dangerous place to raise a child. Leave the house and there are hard edges, pointy rocks, and steep inclines everywhere. As much as we’d like to, we just can’t childproof those too.

Sylvia Pagán Westphal is a regular contributor to the Globe opinion pages.

Posted to Rick’s Blog by Alliance for Children’s Product Safety Staff

Read more here:
GUEST BLOG – BOSTON GLOBE WRITER TAKES NOTICE OF ALL THOSE CPSC RECALLS

CPSIA – Guest Blogs

I am going on vacation (!) and therefore my blog will be dark, more or less, for a couple weeks. In my absence, we have invited a few friends and interested parties to contribute essays on the CPSIA for inclusion in this space. We do not plan to edit the posts, and hope you will enjoy them.

If you have something to say and were not solicited by me, feel free to send me your essay(s). No promises, but we will consider anything you send us. We are open to opposing views as well. It is my hope to stimulate debate and discussion of important issues relating to the CPSIA . . . before it’s too late.

Rick

Read more here:
CPSIA – Guest Blogs

CPSIA – Lead Isn’t the ONLY Danger Out There . . . .

The Onion News Network broke a controversial story today about yet another danger caused by modern society.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Lead Isn’t the ONLY Danger Out There . . . .

CPSIA – Turns Out that the Government CAN Assert Preemption

And you thought state regulation of children’s products was a fait accompli, nothing we can do about it. The proliferation of state safety regulations is a major hindrance to interstate commerce and puts small and medium-sized businesses in a very risky position. Who can possibly master the federal system of safety laws and regulations plus 38 states’ own unique versions (plus the EU, plus Canada, plus Japan, plus . . . plus . . . plus)? No one.

The CPSIA addressed this mess by ENCOURAGING IT. The law does not preempt a variety of state laws relating to the safety of children’s products. Among the notable laws so exempted, California’s Proposition 65 is especially troubling. That said, I cannot recall a single word of a single state children’s product safety law that has been preempted by the federal government. It’s the Wild West out there.

Worse yet, this subject is among the many that are “off limits”. In other words, we are advised to keep our opinions on preemption to ourselves for risk of “offending” the controlling Democratic party. The non-preemption of state laws that conflict with the CPSIA, CPSA and policy and regulations of the CPSC are to be tolerated, I guess. We have no say in this. Like so many things nowadays . . . .

Aha, but when the liberals don’t like the action of the states, well then preemption is apparently a viable option. So today the federal government decided to take action against the Arizona immigration law. [I am a minority and am generally fearful of government rules that encroach on protections for minorities. Of course, like most of the media and America at large, I haven't read the Arizona law. So while I am directionally in favor of knocking it out, I freely admit I don't know much about this controversy other than the things I have gleaned from other people's analysis.] So I guess preemption is a viable option . . . if the motivation is there.

The federal complaint makes many compelling assertions about the value and importance of preemption in the case of immigration law . . . and many of these assertions could just as easily be levied against state regulation of children’s products. It will never happen, of course, because that might offend the “public interest groups” behind the CPSIA. Besides, who can trust companies anyhow . . . .

Some pertinent quotes (emphasis added):

“In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. . . . The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.“

“The federal government, moreover, welcomes cooperative efforts by states and localities to aid in the enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws. But the United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government’s immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy – a policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance when enforcing and administering the immigration laws and disrupts the balance actually established by the federal government.”

“In crafting federal immigration law and policy, Congress has necessarily taken into account multiple and often competing national interests. . . . The laws also take into account other uniquely national interests, including facilitating trade and commerce . . . .”

“Because S.B. 1070, in both its singularly stated purpose and necessary operation, conflicts with the federal government’s balance of competing objectives in the enforcement of the federal immigration laws, its passage already has had foreign policy implications for U.S. diplomatic relations with other countries, including Mexico and many others. S.B. 1070 has also had foreign policy implications concerning specific national interests regarding national security, drug enforcement, tourism, trade, and a variety of other issues. . . . Numerous other states are contemplating passing legislation similar to S.B. 1070.”

The Feds have noted that the patchwork of local laws would likely prove highly disruptive to efforts to coordinate a national policy on this topic. They are apparently fearful that the Arizona law will lead to many more just like it in other states. Among other reasons to fear the new immigration laws, local laws can have international implications and can hurt trade. I think I know what they are getting at . . . . Consider the market effects of the noxious Proposition 65 and the truly awful and frightening Green Chemistry initiative oozing forth from California in our direction. The case for this preemption lawsuit is eerily similar to the case for preemption of local safety laws. Unfortunately, we will never get this help unless the Feds decide that the system is so out-of-whack that a lawsuit must be filed. With Dems in charge of Congress who are the blood brothers of consumer groups, this will NEVER happen. Too bad for us.

I feel the federal government’s pain on the Arizona law. Too bad they don’t feel mine.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Turns Out that the Government CAN Assert Preemption

CPSIA – Losing Sight of the Issue in Pool Deaths

These are the people who are protecting you:

“[The] CPSC, which kicked off a pool-safety campaign Thursday, emphasized that [pool safety] issues go beyond drains: At least 70 people drowned in pools since Memorial Day; 80 more almost drowned. ‘There were thankfully zero drain entrapment deaths in 2009,’ says CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson. ‘Our campaign is aimed at reducing child drownings and keeping entrapment deaths to zero again this year.’” [Emphasis added]

USA Today, July 3, 2010 “Pool-safety advocates decry loss of drain backup rule“

Yes, the safety enforcement circus carries on. The USA Today reports that AT LEAST 70 people have died in pool drownings since Memorial Day (May 31). The July 3 article appears 33 days after Memorial Day, so that’s more than TWO DEATHS A DAY. Another 80 almost drowned – the total serious injuries and deaths is about FIVE A DAY. And the CPSC’s reaction – if the deaths didn’t occur from pool drains, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. WHEW! If they had died from a pool drain, that would have been really TERRIBLE.

Of course, the victims are still dead. Not a safety concern, apparently. We must stay focused on pool drains . . . .

I know you think I’m kidding BUT to judge by the reality-detached hyperbole of our heroic Democratic Congressional leaders, you’d never know it. Consider the remarks of the estimable Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of Ms. Pelosi’s attack dogs in the CPSIA drama: “CPSC interpreted the law in the ‘most egregious and narrow way possible’ by eliminating the requirement for backup systems, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and co-sponsors of the law said in a letter to CPSC Commissioner Robert Adler last month.” [USA Today article]

And why did Ms. Wasserman Schultz think this action was so “egregious”? Here are her words: “We understand that the interpretation that CPSC adopted is the same one that the pool and spa industry endorsed, and is not the interpretation that public interest groups and victims’ families had urged the Commission to adopt.” Aha – how DARE the CPSC defy consumer groups in favor of evil industry?! Doesn’t the agency know that if industry wants something, it must be bad for consumers?!

Democratic Senators pitched in as well they could. Drawn from the same rogue’s gallery that brought you the noxious CPSIA (Pryor, Durbin, Klobuchar, Nelson (FL) and Dodd), the Senators stated that the Commission violated “both the spirit and the letter of the act.“

Okay, Junior Scientists of Congress, committed to making us so so SOOOO safe, please note that deaths from pool drains totalled 11 in ten years according to the CPSC. However, total deaths from pools is more than two a day since Memorial Day, and has averaged 385 per year for children under 15 in recent years. So you guys are hassling the agency over a design flaw that causes 11 deaths a decade, and seemingly want it to be the priority of the agency over, say, general pool deaths which total almost 4,000 kids each decade (about 3,000 are under five). Perhaps you should have sent your letters to the families of the 70 victims in the last 33 days so they’d know how much you care.

For a change (it’s been a long-g-g-g-g time coming), the agency was trying to make a practical decision on how to implement a very expensive law focusing on a small problem. The data now suggests that the expense of the Virginia Graeme Baker repairs are prohibitively high, especially in light of the infrequent injuries (however horrific).

Sadly, when it could finally take the high road, the agency flinched in front of the press, insulting the memory of the 70 recent drowning victims. To slough off the 70 recent deaths because they weren’t caused by pool drains is nothing short of abdication of duty (or resignation to failure). I don’t know about you, but I am plenty tired of politically-motivated, pet project, holier-than-thou safety. This benefits no one other than the pandering politicians hoping to dupe you into voting for their reelection.

Will this madness EVER end???

Read more here:
CPSIA – Losing Sight of the Issue in Pool Deaths

CPSIA – Deaf Congress Makes Up Its Own Justifications for New Law

The recently approved H.R. 4678 Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2010 is based on testimony given by several of the usual suspects. Consumer groups filed testimony portraying the need for this law as rather “obvious”:

Consumers Union (June 16, 2010): “While [the CPSIA] has made great strides in improving product safety, and will continue to do so as its implementation continues, the CPSIA focuses on improving safety by requiring that children’s products subject to mandatory standards be tested to ensure compliance with the standard. The law does not address bringing foreign manufacturers into our civil justice system. However, to fully protect consumers from unsafe products, wherever they are made, American consumers must be able to hold manufacturers accountable when they are harmed – no matter where the products are made.”

Consumers Union goes on to assert: “If a foreign manufacturer knows that they cannot be held responsible in U.S. courts for the products they sell, this knowledge has a likely significant impact upon their manufacturing decisions. Do they use the stronger, more expensive component? Do they ensure that the product meets the safety standards? Do they prioritize safety if they know they are not accountable to U.S. consumers in U.S. courts? Holding manufacturing entities accountable in our civil justice system acts as an important deterrent to unethical and potentially harmful business conduct.”

The Briefing Memo for the mark-up (prepared by the Dems) takes up the anti-business, leftist consumer group cause, namely that we need to change the rules to allow consumers to sue foreign manufacturers to protect our way of life. The new law is intended to overcome a little legal wrinkle preventing true consumer justice – the U.S. Constitution:

“In addition, even if a victim successfully serves process on a foreign manufacturer, the manufacturer will likely challenge the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it by a U.S. court. Under well-established constitutional due process principles, before a U.S. court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant it must consider: (1) the defendant’s purposeful minimum contacts with the state in which the court sits, and (2) fairness to the defendant of being subjected to jurisdiction in that state’s courts. . . . H.R. 4678 requires foreign manufacturers and producers that import products into the United States to designate a registered agent who is authorized to accept service of process here in the United States. . . . Registering an agent consistent with the Act constitutes acceptance by the manufacturer of personal jurisdiction of the state and federal courts of the state in which the agent is located.”

Problem solved! Congress found a way to circumvent the framers’ intent. That darned Constitution gets in the way of good government, you know.

Notably, the “urgent” need to go around the Constitution was not echoed in the CPSC’s own testimony:

“Additional authority allowing the CPSC to require foreign manufacturers designate a U.S. registered agent for service of process could be helpful in some cases – particularly those involving administrative requests for documents or information.”

“In a few cases, however, the lack of a registered agent for service of process has hindered the Commission’s ability to develop information that would help us to provide relief to consumers.”

“The lack of a registered agent for service of process has also been recognized by Chinese industry groups, and some local lawyers in China have provided legal advice seeking to exploit this situation . . . . This type of sentiment appears rare.” [Emphasis added]

Opponents to the bill made arguments similar to those previously highlighted in this space (see above and here): American Association of Importers and Exporters and National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America.

I estimate that our business will lose 25-50% of our foreign suppliers and untold numbers of component factories if they are required to have a registered agent under this new law. Most of these sources are irreplaceable in our business (for a variety of reasons). That means that the products we make at these factories will have to be discontinued. Too bad for us, I guess. This could happen quickly, too.

I wish that were the only problem. The lame-brained notion that foreign countries will allow U.S. citizens to cross borders to take domestic assets to settle foreign disputes will prove to be delustional. U.S. companies will soon be greeted by reciprocal registration requirements or even harsher laws exposing them to onerous trade barriers and significant new legal risks. Again, our business is squarely in the bullseye of this maelstrom. We have worked tirelessly for more than 20 years to build an international network of dealers for our products. That creates JOBS here. Anyhow, it is inevitable that a law like this will spawn a need to register our company in dozens of countries abroad, meaning we would need to hire a law firm for each country, translate all the laws, decide if we want to bear the expense and risk of registration. Our foreign business would evaporate quickly and efficiently.

The basic idea that our country actually needs this law is hard to comprehend. Where are all the hungry plaintiffs’ attorneys who can’t put food on the table? Which rights aren’t being satisfied? For each product imported into this country, there must a U.S. importer. Why isn’t that pool of assets enough to satisfy this need, as it has been for years and years? Why doesn’t importers’ exposure under the U.S. tort system provide enough incentive to address Consumers Union’s parade of horribles above? I thought that’s why we have our crazy tort system in the first place. No answer has been provided by Congress to these questions. They just gave us a wonderful new law to worry about.

Thanks so much, Democrats in Congress. We love ya! And we can’t wait to vote AGAINST you! See you at the polls.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Deaf Congress Makes Up Its Own Justifications for New Law

CPSIA – It’s Election Season – What are You Doing About it?

We have suffered through two years of savage persecution by an unmoved federal government seemingly bent on our destruction. Now this Democratic Congress is coming up for reelection. What are you going to do???

In my case, I am committed to put my money where my mouth is. I am not content with mere grumbling in a blog – I am getting involved in several races and intend to raise money for candidates who will support a sharp revision of the CPSIA and rein in the expansion of our lardy and intrusive federal government. The goal is to take away the House Energy and Commerce Committee gavel from the bullying and anti-business Henry Waxman. He has proven time and again that he and his staff don’t care about our problems nor are they interested in understanding how our problems will become everyone’s problems in due course. In casting our industry overboard for a misguided legislative scheme designed by consumer groups, he picked sides. Now we get to pick sides ourselves.

Last week, we were pleased to host Joel Pollak, Republican candidate in Illinois’ 9th Congressional district (www.pollakforcongress.com) at our company. We had a spirited Q&A session that left everyone impressed with Joel’s intellect and integrity. Joel is a breath of fresh air, especially in the 9th district, lately represented by Jan Schakowsky, Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. Ms. Schakowsky is one of the staunchest defenders of the CPSIA and through her actions, has declared herself an enemy of your companies and everything you do. We support Mr. Pollak in his effort to unseat her. More to the point, we are going to do everything in our power to help Mr. Pollak bring his issues to his constituents and put Ms. Schakowsky to the test.

You can do this, too. In your local district or statewide election, your energy and sense of purpose can be a difference-maker. Host a coffee, volunteer some time, ask the candidate to make an appearance. If you are able to raise funds for the campaign, all the better. If you are not happy with the direction of your country or your government, exercise your Constitutional rights and get involved.

We will never take the gavel away from Henry Waxman through worry, frustration or prayer. We are only going to help ourselves by working hard for candidates who understand our issues and will stand up for the free enterprise system. There is a lot at stake here – the future of your company, the jobs you provide your valued associates, the economic well-being of your customers and suppliers and their employees, not to mention the kids, the families and the schools who depend on your products and use them safely every day. All of those people are counting on you to defend them.

Don’t sit still – it’s time to act. The election is only about four months away. Election day could be a real triumph after years of dire straits and frustrations. There’s still time to fix the CPSC and this law – but we all must do our part. A new Congress is a good place to start.

I hope you will use this space with suggestions on how we can all help our chosen candidates. I will publish the best ideas in future blogposts as well as comments to individual blogs.

Read more here:
CPSIA – It’s Election Season – What are You Doing About it?

CPSIA – What?! Too Many Recalls – That CAN’T Be!

The Washington Post stated the obvious this week in an article Friday entitled “Officials Worry about Consumers Lost Among the Recalls“. Apparently, the surge in recalls has caused consumers to increasingly ignore them. Apparently, many consumers choose to continue to use recalled items or even to eat recalled food. Among the issues, the swelling number of recalls encourages consumers to assume that they are not serious. In addition, the onslaught of recalls is numbing to consumers. Prominent recalls that appear to be based on junk science or Regulatory Multiple Personality Disorder (RMPD), like my personal favorite McDonald’s Shrek glasses which were recalled despite the CPSC’s admissin that they were perfectly safe, only amplifiwa the sense of a system is out of control.

Among the useless advice offered in the article is the recommendation that all merchants should do as Costco does, which is to call every customer who has ever bought a recalled item in its stores. What Costco does is admirable, but it is entirely dependent on being a multi-billion dollar, high tech mass market retailer. I think it would be great if I could hit my nine iron 205 yards like Tiger Woods, but then again, it ain’t happenin’. It’s about as realistic to advise (or require) me to match Mr. Woods distance and accuracy with his golf clubs as it is to require all U.S. merchants to match the achievements of ONE of them, namely Costco in this case. Unfortunately, the article’s suggestion is utterly out of touch with reality. Bad news – the world’s imperfect. . . .

Whatever we do, we certainly shouldn’t address the standards for how recalls are determined, staged or publicized. We may disagree about many things, but we all have to acknowledge that our government COULDN’T be at fault. Certainly not, their every choice and execution is perfection by definition. It’s obviously the fault of industry.

Editor’s Note: In case you were wondering, I was being sarcastic in the paragraph above.

The Post article also clucks about the implementation of registration cards for durable infant products like cribs and bassinets. I have consistently pointed out that durable infant products are in a different category because they are useful for a long time (hence the word “durable”) and tend to be handed down from one generation to another, often being used over decades. On this basis, having a way to reach consumers is a good idea. BUT we need to acknowledge an important consequence of this idealistic solution – the new rules tend to make it very difficult or even illegal as a practical matter to START a business catering to these markets. For those companies crazy enough to remain in the durable infant products market, the new rules on registration cards and data retention is a Gift from Above. The infrastructure and overhead burden of this requirement will be unbearable for any except the most well-capitalized companies.

I am glad I don’t need a crib now. Considering how many companies have been crushed by recalls, the penal attitude of the agency (with huge penalties possible LONG after recalls are announced), tough new standards and regulations on the product class, and the new registration cards, I cannot imagine many companies remaining in this market for much longer. The ensuing lack of competition will likely mean fewer products, much higher prices, less innovation, fewer available imports. The CPSIA is a protectionist regime for those few companies not already bankrupt at the hands of the government.

I am not in this business and my kids are older – for once, this is someone else’s problem. I think the government’s approach to fixing this problem is completely wrong. They seem to be taking their instructions from a very small and insular group of consumer advocates whose judgment on these matters is largely unchallenged by industry or an inquisitive media. [Media is only inquisitive these days if they can portray a crisis, it seems to me.] Having bought into these harsh concepts at the hands of consumer groups, the government today is busy patting itself on the back for a job well-done. We’ll see . . . .

In the meantime, with the CPSC announcing micro-recalls like Daiso’s latest (190 pieces recalled – total, including inventory on the shelf – of five items selling for $1.50 at retail), the consumer is left wondering if anything is safe or everything is safe (and the government has lost its mind). I can’t tell you but my guess is closer to the latter. And the Washington Post says you are all checking out. Good job, regulators!

Read more here:
CPSIA – What?! Too Many Recalls – That CAN’T Be!

CPSIA – CPSC Jumps Into Action to Solve Pool Deaths

As the CPSC announced when it kicked off Pool Safety Week in late May, deaths and injuries to children from pools and spas are breathtaking in scale. CPSC statistics indicate that deaths from pools and spas average more than ONE PER DAY and serious injuries requiring emergency room treatment average more than 11.5 PER DAY. Now THAT’S a serious problem.

By contrast, lead accounted for one death and three unverified injuries over eleven years. So in one day, pools injure more kids than lead did in eleven years.

And how does the CPSC respond to these two threats? Well, for lead, they force industry to spend more than $5.6 billion per year in compliance costs (this doesn’t even count aggravation costs).

And pools? The agency runs some PSA commercials. Here’s a new one:

Love that sense of balance and proportionality. Of course, whacking innocent companies over lead gets good headlines and makes the regulators look valiant. No one wants the agency to crack down on pools. Perhaps it’s only cynics like me that think this lame approach reveals a lack of commitment to safety by both the agency and Congress. Perhaps our regulators think Public Service Announcements are PERFECT to reduce the scourge of pool deaths and injuries, but only asphyxiation of the children’s product industry will address the lead “threat”.

Particularly amusing, then, is the response of municipalities to the Pool Safety Initiative. Who remembers Chairman Inez Tenenbaum’s hearty self-congratulation on February 17, 2010 for conducting inspections of 1200 pools? Her words: “We’ve carried out my principle of firm but fair enforcement of product safety laws by inspecting 1200 public pools and spas for compliance with the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act – the results gave us good reason to believe that the law is working”. She made a similar assertion in Congressional testimony in September 2009: “In addition, CPSC investigators have inspected over 1200 pools and spas in 38 states as part of a recently launched enforcement initiative. The good news is that CPSC’s public outreach and education efforts seem to be having a positive impact in this area. Recent inspections show that most public pools and spas have installed or have plans to install the new, compliant drains covers and safety equipment in the near future. Let me state again, contrary to some reports, there are many more public pools and spas that have been made safer because of this important law.”

Problem solved? According to the Fresno Bee, it’s hardly a closed book: “About half of the 1,300 public pools and hot tubs in Fresno County do not comply with new state safety standards designed to prevent swimmers from being caught by suction on drains, county officials say.” [This is the Virginia Graeme Baker law.] What explains the hold-up? The repairs are costly and then there’s the sense of urgency: “Mary Jo Quintero, water safety program coordinator for Children’s Hospital Central California, said she is not aware of any entrapment injuries occurring in the Merced-to-Bakersfield region during her 30-year tenure at the hospital.”

Perhaps you have heard of the financial problems in California and in municipalities in general. Think of the impact of this law when money is in short supply: “The city of Fresno retrofitted its four large pools more than a year ago, costing about $60,000, said city spokeswoman Heather Heinks. ‘We are totally compliant. It’s been county-inspected,’ she said.” So a few public pools have been fixed . . . and as for the rest of the public pools – no one is in much of a hurry. “Although many pools are not yet up to code, officials say they have no plans to immediately shut them down.”

So the local government is blowing this off. What about private owners? Are they just as bold, or are they afraid to defy government agencies armed with heavy penalties? “However, some apartment owners are closing pools on their own because they can’t afford the upgrades, said Bob Waterston, a former Fresno County supervisor who owns a pool company that specializes in the retrofits.”

The CPSC is running Public Service Announcements telling you to watch your kid in the pool (duh) in response to a childhood activity that is wildly popular and scandalously dangerous. The agency is also bragging about its enforcement of this high-profile law, asserting results that seem to be untrue. Hmmm. And as for the lead “problem” that produced one death and three unverified injuries in more than a decade, the CPSC has been actively developing rules that will lead to business death by compliance.

I just love our government!

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSC Jumps Into Action to Solve Pool Deaths

CPSIA – What Will CPSC Hit Daiso With This Time – Nukes?

Dastardly Daiso, the hapless Japanese chain of dollar stores that probably regrets the day it first heard of the U.S., has been forced to recall yet more items. This recall, their sixth in recent years, involves five items for excessive lead. They are currently under injunction by the CPSC and the U.S. Attorney. Uh-oh.

Excessive lead in kids’ products – that sounds AWFUL, doesn’t it? In the tradition of most modern commentators, I thought I’d write this blogpost without reading the recall notice. After all, I know what it says without reading it, right? Well, at THIS blog, we have standards, you know. My editor INSISTED that I read it.

So I read it, and here are the details. You better sit down . . . the horror of it all . . . there are five items involved: one cloth purse, two pairs of earrings and two necklaces. The total number of units, across all five items, is 190 pieces, or less than 40 per item. And how did dastardly Daiso endanger kids THIS time? “The surface paint on the zippers of the coin purses and the clasps on the jewelry contain high levels of lead.” Whoa! The retail price of these items is about $1.50 each, so the total value of this recall is $285. There were no injuries reported. The CPSC put out a press release so all of America could know how safe they were.

SCIENCE TIME: The presence of lead in the zipper paint and in the clasp does not itself cause any harm. Lead is a neurotoxin, true, but lead must enter your bloodstream to do harm. And if it does manage to get in there (through inhalation of dust or through ingestion of bio-available lead), blood lead levels must rise to a certain point before any harm can possibly occur. Since we all consume lead every day in our food, water and air, the human body clearly can process some lead without harm – it does not simply accumulate. The amount (mass) of lead in these items is probably close to nil. I assert that if you chose to have a meal comprised of only the zippers and clasps from the 190 recalled units (ALL of them), you could not raise your blood lead levels high enough to do damage. AND the impact of lead in blood varies by the age of child. As the child ages, the impact from lead dramatically diminished. This is why Congress chose not to protect my blog readers – they are all adults and out of harm’s way. Lead is principally a problem for the “under 3′s”. The Daiso items are not for children under three, so the odds of harm are excruciating low. And it is utterly inconceivable that one person would eat all of the zipper paint and clasps in this minuscule recall. So, is this a public health crisis? You decide!

Back to Blog Time: Now, let’s think of Daiso and its sorry tale. They have previously been the subject of five recalls of 19 items, totally 698 units, over two years. For this series of “transgressions”, they were whacked with an injunction by the U.S. Attorney against further importing of toys (Tenenbaum: “Now the fine was large, but that wasn’t the big news . . . . We worked closely with the Justice Department on this case, and Daiso has a very high hurdle to jump over to EVER get back in the import business again”). Daiso also was hit with a “get the message” penalty of $2.05 million. This is about $1,000 per unit in penalties for items with a retail value of between $1 and $4 each. That’s gotta get your attention.

So now that Daiso has stepped across the line again, what will the CPSC do? This kind of transgression can’t go unpunished, right? Don’t we live in a society based on retribution today? [We learned it from the Taliban.] Having hit Daiso with a $2.05 million penalty last time, the agency has to set this penalty higher since Daiso obviously is so incorrigible. If the last penalty was $1,000 per unit, maybe the agency should hit them with a penalty of $100,000 per unit to get them to take our laws seriously. Darnit, they CAN’T – that exceeds the maximum penalty of $15 million. Now what?

There’s always jail time. Somebody needs to pay, of course. How can the agency ignore an offense of this scale? 190 units is unforgivable. That’s almost $300 in value! That’s like one iPhone (with a two-year phone contract). We can’t let the people be endangered like that!

They were really good at torture in the Middle Ages – maybe something gory would get Daiso’s attention this time. Capture a manager and have him/her drawn-and-quartered in the public square? The agency could webcast it! There are so many options. The agency needs to do whatever is necessary to keep American kids safe, so I certainly hope they will use their entire arsenal. Waterboarding?

Personally, I am grateful to Congress for not giving the CPSC nukes.

Read more here:
CPSIA – What Will CPSC Hit Daiso With This Time – Nukes?

« Previous Page