CPSIA – NAM Demands Extension of Testing Stay

The National Association of Manufacturers sent this letter to the CPSC today demanding that the testing and certification stay be extended. This controversial stay is due to expire one month from today. Numerous organizations signed the letter, including the Alliance for Children’s Product Safety.

Read more here:
CPSIA – NAM Demands Extension of Testing Stay

CPSIA – First Update on House CPSIA Meeting

I am going to be feeding updates on yesterday’s Washington meeting over the next few days. There is a fair bit to digest and explain. I want to do justice to the importance of the topic. Please bear with me!

In the meantime, here are some basic documents to read. The meeting was attended by the following people or groups, and some of them presented their positions in writing. If they gave out written remarks, I have linked to the documents below:

American Academy of Pediatrics
Handmade Toy Alliance
American Apparel & Footwear Association
Consumer Federation of America
Consumers Union
Printing Industries of America
Toy Industry Association
Fashion Jewelry and Accessories Trade Association
National Association of Manufacturers
Alliance for Children’s Product Safety (yours truly)
American Chemistry Council
ATV Industry
Retail Industry Leaders Association

The meeting was also attended by staff representing both the Majority (Republicans) and Minority (Democrats) on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as interested parties like staff from the offices of various members of Congress (notably, Rep. Mary Bono-Mack, incoming Chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade).

More later!

Read more here:
CPSIA – First Update on House CPSIA Meeting

CPSIA – My Remarks at House Working Session on CPSIA

STATEMENT OF RICHARD WOLDENBERG
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
Committee on Energy and Commerce
United States House of Representatives
January 6, 2011

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views today. My name is Richard Woldenberg. I am Chairman of Learning Resources, Inc., a Vernon Hills, Illinois-based manufacturer of educational materials.

Despite its lofty goals, the CPSIA has had little impact on safety while severely disrupting markets and sharply raising operating costs. I have previously testified that our testing costs rose 8 times between 2006 and 2009 and are expected to multiply again. We have also cut back on our marketing and sales expenses to pay for the increase in our QC department from one to five.

This so-called “toy law” was designed to solve a problem that frankly didn’t exist. In 2007/8, there were some notorious toy recalls for lead-in-paint violations – yet there were almost no injuries. The CPSIA was an almost hysterical over-reaction to a simple compliance issue concerning a small number of companies.

Ironically, the CPSIA has already “cured” the compliance problem in the toy industry despite the glacial pace of implementation. Today, 30 months after passage of the law, lead-in-substrate testing is still not mandatory – yet toy recalls have fallen dramatically. How did it happen? I believe publicity, industry outreach and the commitment of new resources by industry improved compliance. Revised lead standards had NOTHING to do with it.

The CPSIA is causing a lasting trauma in our market. Small businesses left the market in droves. For instance, we decided not to enter the toddler market with new educational products. While foregone business opportunities don’t produce a pile of bodies, the economic damage is still severe. In an efficient marketplace, capital is redeployed and products and companies just move elsewhere. We need to fix this problem pronto.

The solution to the CPSIA problem lies in fixing the four horsemen of this apocalypse: (a) cost, (b) complexity, (c) risk and (d) government intrusion.

The worst CPSIA cost impact relates to needless and repetitive testing. Mandatory testing for everything but lead-in-paint should be dropped. An amended CPSIA should apply ONLY to those products specifically identified as presenting a substantial risk of injury or death from lead or lead-in-paint at the specified mandatory standards. This will sensibly knock out the vast majority of products subject to this law. The CPSC Commission should be mandated by law to rigorously apply this rule – the agency should bear the burden of proof.

The excesses of the current “precautionary principle” era cannot be allowed to continue. Lax application of the “substantial product hazard” law has created real doubt about the meaning of our safety laws. Strict adherence to this rule should be mandated by Congress to eliminate the many artificial crises spawned by the CPSIA. Discretion to set age limits, the applicability of the phthalates ban, tracking labels and the reduction of the lead standards should be subject to the same rigorous rule.

To preserve the competitiveness of American schools, special exemptions must be made for educational products (particularly science and special needs items).

The phthalates ban should be limited to products for children three and under to sharply reduce CPSIA compliance costs. This is a reasonable compromise pending resolution of any remaining doubts over the safety of these specific chemicals.

Complexity must be sharply reduced. The old rules were a manageable 100 pages or so but now top 3000 pages and growing. We need to return to a “keep it simple” set of rules with limited reporting requirements. Congress or the CPSC must choose top priorities, and promulgate limited and focused rules. I can assure you that no one understands the moving target of CPSC rules anymore. This MUST be remedied in any amendment of the CPSIA.

Needless bureaucracy should be eliminated, such as CPSC certification of labs, including in-house labs. Fraud and/or incompetence in testing have always been rare. Customs involvement in the CPSC supply chain should be shaped by a cost-benefit basis. Dealing with product safety like the prevention of terrorism is absurdly disproportionate to the risk and far too costly.

Implementation of the public database should be delayed until reasonable protections of due process rights of manufacturers are in place. Congress never intended to create an indistinguishable mixed bag of truths, half-truths and falsehoods – that’s what we have the Internet for. The adopted “anything goes” rules went way too far, and will accelerate market exits.

Government intrusion and excessive government power casts a pall over the children’s product market now. Open-ended penalty provisions allow for emotional and disproportionate punishments. The Commission has also asserted unprecedented powers to retroactively ban products and to mandate their replacement. Clearly, strict procedural controls and protections are missing. The era of “death penalties” without oversight must end.

Some CPSIA fixes are not legislative. Among other things, the CPSC needs to embrace industry as its partner in safety. As the past two years demonstrates, engaging industry is the key to long term improvements in safety.

Notwithstanding the media’s misrepresentation of our industry, we have an enviable record of safety. This is not a case of bad people, venal companies or lazy regulators. The problem is one of misapplied resources and ineffective regulatory strategy. The solution doesn’t require more money or more chest thumping. A well-designed law, combined with good education and industry outreach practices, will create the safer market that everyone wants.

Thank you for considering my views today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Remarks at House Working Session on CPSIA

CPSIA – CPSC Says "Ahhh, Don’t Worry About It!"

What me worry?!

In a TV piece called “Mom Outraged Over Lead in Baby’s Toy” (watch the video here), a Georgia mother found “an ominous warning” on a toy drum she purchased for her 16 month old from Toys R Us (one of the toughest retailers on legal compliance and quality control, btw). The label read: “Warning: contains lead. May be harmful if eaten or chewed. May generate dust containing lead.”

Uh-oh.

And I was wondering why anyone would buy a drum for a 16 month old . . . .

Mom was not happy: “Even if it’s just a little bit of lead, I think lead in anything for a child is just insane.”

When consulted, the CPSC assured her that it didn’t mean anything. It’s all about a California law that requires labels for lead levels that have nothing to do with safety. Scott Wolfson, who can really turn a phrase, intoned: “We respect California law, but parents should know that the safety of their children is not necessarily at risk if they see that label.”

This is so rich on so many levels.

First, the CPSC is prohibited from assessing risk under the CPSIA. How is it that their spokesman is allowed to assess risk? I thought Congress decides what’s risky now. The CPSC can’t be trusted, right? As usual, particularly when Mr. Wolfson is involved, the CPSC’s position is whatever is best for THEM. To heck with you. For purposes of this story, they magically regained the ability to assess risk.

Let’s review – as a matter of law, the CPSC’s job is to enforce the standards. They are literally prohibited from considering whether compliant products pose a risk. They are just measurers now, the “cop on the beat”, determining whether products are inside the circle or outside the circle but never whether the circle is in the right place. So how can they fashion a judgment that lesser levels of lead aren’t risky? The best they can say is that Congress didn’t apparently think those lead levels deserved attention.

I am thinking of Sargeant Schultz from “Hogan’s Heroes” . . . .

Second, the CPSIA is loaded with superfluous labels. The philosophy of warning consumers through labels pasted over labels is central to the precautionary principle that drove this law. How Mr. Wolfson can advise consumers to ignore a warning label without blushing is beyond me.

I believe the reason they try this stuff is because they think we’re so stupid that we won’t notice. Or that we’re so docile we won’t say anything. In any event, it hardly matters because they sure aren’t going to listen to us.

Third, this situation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what I have been saying for three years – that lead labels are a tacit ban. I have long resisted lead labels on any of our products. [Please NOTE - this is only happens under technical application of these stupid rules (gotcha's), such as labels for rocks, light bulbs, coated electrical cords, etc., and only on educational products.] If you put a label like the Georgia label on your product, it will die and you will have to drop it. Plain and simple – listen to the Georgia Mom. She’s normal and has some common sense – if the company is warning you about lead, don’t ask any questions, just don’t use the product. Why else would they be warning you? Duh.

A tacit ban.

So the Illinois law and the California law that require these labels are not only violations of Constitutional protection of interstate commerce, but they are also preempted by federal law. The States are not allowed to ban products that are permitted to be sold by Federal law – they are preempted from taking that step. When you put a label on a product that causes consumers to not buy the product, you destroy the economic viability of the product, thereby killing it. This is a tacit ban, a ban in as many words. It is illegal.

Scott Wolfson apparently doesn’t see the problem. Consumers should know that this label isn’t serious, he says. I assume he thinks consumers should know that the other labels they should know are serious. If they have any questions, perhaps they should call him. He knows-it-all.

Or maybe Moms everywhere should get better at reading Scott’s mind. That’s the ticket. Fuggedaboutit.

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSC Says "Ahhh, Don’t Worry About It!"

CPSIA – John Stuart Mill and Crib Safety

“I have observed that not the man who hopes when others despair, but the man who despairs when others hope, is admired by a large class of persons as a sage.”

John Stuart Mill
1828

The CPSC recently congratulated itself for banning drop-side cribs. Scott Wolfson clucked on Twitter: “RT @Scott_wolfson: The lifesaving crib rules approved by #CPSC today are a key part of the #CPSIA. #CPSC wants all babies to have a #safesleep.” Other people, like Rep. Jan Schakowsky, also rushed forward to take credit for this change in regulation.

To judge from these press releases, a real crisis in public safety has been addressed. Is that true?

Wasn’t it Winston Churchill who once said that history is written by the victors???

I have not touched the crib issue previously because, frankly, it’s too hot to handle. Who would want to defend a product associated with baby deaths? There but for the grace of G-d goes I. On the other hand, the projected compliance expense of $550 million is breathtaking, particularly given the fact that the agency’s ruling is both retroactive and mandates replacement of cribs in certain childcare facilities. Even Commissioner Robert Adler calls this expansion of the CPSC’s role as “uncharted territory“. This sets a new precedent for government (CPSC) intrusion that I find troubling, even under these circumstances.

The always astute Lenore Skenazy questions the CPSC’s justification of three fatalities a year linked to drop-side cribs. She labels herself “subversive” for looking at the numbers. [You know you were thinking it, admit it!] Based on the injury figures released by the CPSC, she notes that the deaths attributed to drop-side cribs are less than those attributed to spider bites (five per year). She puts the drop-side crib-related deaths in the context of 4 million births per year and asks where the limit is in our effort to save ourselves.

Skenazy rattles off many other death statistics (such as 1,300 per year from stair falls) for further perspective on the scale of the drop-side crib “crisis”. She does not discuss pool deaths, which number between 1-2 per day and generate 11-12 childhood emergency room treatments for serious injuries daily. But the obsession of this CPSC is drop-side cribs, so we should not worry about those other things . . . .

Lenore makes a good point. What IS the limit? And how much should we pay? Is this really a public health crisis, and if it is, aren’t all those other causes of childhood deaths similarly a crisis? Who gets to decide which crisis is our top priority?

As J.S. Mill points out, despair sells well so we are naturally inclined to accept on face value the shrill self-congratulations of the politicians who are so busy making us so safe. I have been battling the same self-justifications and self-praise by politicians and consumer “advocates” over lead for three years. Does the absence of injury statistics matter to anyone?

Interestingly, the CPSC provides some context on its crib decision. If you read through the document announcing the change, you will find out a few interesting tidbits:

• Despite Ms. Schakowsky’s claim to have created this regulatory storm, the industry has been working on standards for many years. ASTM F 1169–10, the full-size crib standard, was originally published in 1999 and has been revised several times since 1999, including 2010. The same can be said of the voluntary standards for non-full-size cribs. The statement in the CPSC press release noting that “[t]he federal crib standards had not been updated in nearly 30 years” is pretty misleading – the voluntary standards relied upon by the agency and the industry have been regularly revised. [Until this administration took over, the CPSC relied on voluntary standards as a matter of public policy.] Even more remarkably, please note that the current CPSC action adopts these voluntary standards as the new mandatory standards with minimal amendments, calling the adopted standards “substantially the same” as the voluntary standards. Hmmm.
• The CPSC initially issued mandatory standards for cribs in 1973 and amended them in 1982. There has been on-and-off activity at the agency in the ensuing years. Crib safety was not a new subject to the Commission when Ms. Schakowsky announced the latest crisis. Ms. Schakowsky didn’t solve the crisis either when she purportedly wrote this provision of the CPSIA. Is it actually certain that there ever was a crisis in drop-side cribs . . . or was Ms. Schakowsky simply looking to bulk up her hagiography?
• Annual sales of cribs are estimated at 2.4 million per year, including non-full-size cribs (approximately 300K per year). Thus, over 11 years (2000-2010), that’s 32 deaths and an estimated 26.4 million cribs sold and 40 million babies born. Crisis? There are approximately 591 models of full-size cribs and 81 non-full-size cribs on the U.S. market, according to the CPSC. In recent years, the CPSC has recalled 11 million “dangerous” cribs defect” since 2007 (about 40% of the estimated total sales in the last 11 years).
• A pilot CPSC project of data gathering on crib injuries from November 1, 2007 to April 11, 2010 generated a total of 3,584 “incidents”, including 147 deaths associated with full-size cribs. Some of these incidents go back as far as 1986, btw. Of the 147 fatalities, 107 were not related to any structural defect in any way. Of the 35 fatalities related to “structural problems”, 18 were related to drop-side cribs. [The CPSC document contains a detailed analysis of the injuries, as well.] So of entire pool of fatalities from cribs in this period, 18 of 147 were related to drop-side cribs in some way – 12% of the total fatalities. The CPSC press release somehow omitted this additional fact.

This data cannot be correlated to the December 17 CPSC press release in which they note 32 deaths since 2000 (11 years). There is no data provided on the AGE, CONDITION or QUALITY of the cribs involved in the deaths, no information on the MAINTENANCE or STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY of those cribs or whether the hardware failure was apparent or not. In its May 7th press release, the CPSC notes however that the 32 deaths include “some [fatalities which] occurred in cribs where the drop side detached without caregivers noticing the detachment, while some other deaths occurred after a consumer tried to repair the detached drop side, but the repair ultimately failed.” [Check out the photos to see what a consumer "repair" might look like.] No quantification whatsoever. Arguably, this CPSC statement suggests that any solution to the problem involves, in whole or in part, user education.

The CPSC did not supply data to distinguish between product failures/defects and parental or caregiver error or misuse. It’s all laid at the feet of the crib design. The CPSC’s “analysis” is pretty simple – you don’t need drop-sides for your baby to sleep comfortably in a crib, and if we eliminate drop-sides from the market, presumably a certain number of unnecessary infant deaths can be avoided. It’s a presumption, however.

It’s hard to argue with their logic but it’s also hard to know what has been accomplished. We do know that the ban of drop-side cribs costs a lot of money, however. Isn’t that relevant, even a little bit? If user education is essential to ANY “solution”, how do we know we have spent our $550 million well or achieved anything whatsoever? The precise mechanism leading to the fatalities cannot be determined from the paltry data released to the public. Table pounding by advocates is, regrettably, not data. As Mr. J.S. Mill notes, the advocates’ histrionics are likely to be taken as “sage” in this case. What if we knew that ten years out, the replacement cribs caused the same number of deaths or perhaps even MORE deaths? The rate of fatalities in these cribs in already remarkably low. How can we be sure that the new cribs will be better? Should we just take Nancy Cowles’ word for it?

I find it interesting that the crib industry has been rather quiet on this change in rules. There are literally dozens of suppliers of cribs in this country, and more than 11 million units have been recalled. Why such quiet from these companies? I suspect the reason is that most consumer do not blame the brands for these recalls, and few people are motivated to return their cribs. [That includes me. Consumer advocates label recalls "unsuccessful" when we the people don't do what they want us to do.] So the cost of the recalls is probably modest BUT the government is mandating that $550 million be spent by childcare providers on NEW cribs. Why would crib manufacturers object to this cost-effective stimulus plan?! Surely many people taking the old drop-side crib out of the attic will say “Whoa, that was recalled. I better buy a new one . . . .” Many, many people.

Thank you, CPSC, for making us so darned safe! The crib industry probably loves you (secretly). Not so sure about hotels and childcare providers. Ultimately I know who pays for all this, however, and it isn’t the consumer advocates or the regulators. It’s the guy who stares back at you from your bathroom mirror.

The CPSC for its part did something easy and self-serving: they saved us from yet another lurking danger that none of us could see, all at our expense. I wonder if the CPSC would be as enthusiastic in their actions if they had to pay for it out of their own budget (or pocket). The money they spend is OURS, and they never even need to steady their hand to write the check. I don’t know about you, but I think it’s much easier to spend someone else’s money, especially when there are a lot of zeroes involved. The CPSC is making us do it for our own good. Does anyone see a problem here?

The new rule sets dangerous new standards for CPSC (government) intrusion into our businesses and into our lives. The CPSC’s action means that the Commission thinks it’s now okay to take retroactive action with impunity. This is a BIG change in regulatory policy. Bob Adler notes: “The Commission has never before entered into a rulemaking, whether or not required by Congress, that not only has retroactive applicability, but also requires the replacement of every product in a given product class – particularly in an occupational setting like child care facilities.” OMG – and this is okay . . . why??? Because he says it’s a crisis and it’s important to do.

This is government power without restraint, and it’s a serious issue. This is much more serious that drop-side crib deaths. I do not know how to run a business in a market regulated by people who make up the rules to suit their mood. I thought there were protections against this.

Let’s hope Mr. Adler and his associates made a good judgment for all of us. They are spending our money and we have no choice but to do as we’re told. That’s “government of the people, by the people, for the people” nowadays, I guess.

I wonder what Abe Lincoln would think of this government . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – John Stuart Mill and Crib Safety

« Previous Page