CPSIA – Why Do Dems Want to Ban Rhinestones?

Why indeed. The Democrats apparently have it in for rhinestones and are so uptight about this “menace” that they are willing to write an outright ban into the CPSIA, via Mr. Waxman’s new amendment. No more bling for you!

Have we finally entered the land of the looneys?

The Dems’ rallying cry on rhinestones goes way back. On September 10, 2009, Rep. Bobby Rush welcomed Inez Tenenbaum to the one CPSIA hearing since August 2008 by commending her for bravely banning rhinestones.

Let’s think about the basics here:

• Rhinestones are simple embellishments. They are found in inexpensive jewelry, on clothing and shoes, in craft kits, used in scrapbooking, are decorations on kids’ pageant and athletic costumes, adorn hair bows and barrettes, etc. They are bling.
• Rhinestones have no history of causing lead poisoning.
• Rhinestones are even okay to sell under the obnoxious Proposition 65.

Chairman Tenenbaum has conceded in writing that the stones are not dangerous: “Commission staff recognized that most crystal and glass beads do not appear to pose a serious health risk to children . . . .” Of course, CPSC Staff are just scientists and Ph.D.’s, not lawyers writing important laws.

Unfortunately, Tenenbaum recanted her stance in Congressional testimony on September 10, 2009. On September 17, I wrote a letter to Chairman Tenenbaum about her rhinestone testimony . . . but never received a reply. The letter asks her to back up her assertion in testimony that swallowing rhinestones presents a lead poisoning risk. This is an unsupportable contention and perhaps this is why my letter was never accorded a response. In particular, I made the following point about the literal “danger” of rhinestones:

“[T]he Exponent study submitted [by the FJTA] on February 2 indicates that the FDA has determined that six micro-grams of lead per day is required to produce a one micro-gram of lead per deciliter change in blood lead levels in children six years old or younger. Thus, to produce such a change in blood lead levels from jewels would require sustained daily ingestion of 12 grams of stones (roughly 4,000 stones or hundreds of pieces of jewelry) or mouthing of 42 grams of stones (roughly 14,000 stones or more than 1,000 pieces of jewelry). Clearly, this is unlikely to occur, particularly accidentally.” [Emphasis added]

As noted, Tenenbaum never answered this letter.

[See also my posts of July 21, July 21 (no. 2), September 10 and September 12.]

Of course, the natural ally of the Dems, the consumer groups, bang the drum mindlessly for banning rhinestones, too. In my September 20 post, I recounted the attack of Nancy Cowles on the rhinestones “menace”. Here is Ms. Cowles’ suggestion for those who value their bling:

“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.”

It’s okay, they just want to protect you.

At this point, I have to ask – what on Earth happened to our country? How did we get to this point? I can’t say for myself, I don’t know how this kind of stridency and absence of BASIC common sense took over our nation. Politics no longer makes sense to me. In today’s New York Times, Senator Evan Byah blasts this theme as he explains why he is dropping out of the Senate after 12 years. It’s a depressing read.

More depressing still is how the Democrats are making such a mess of things and disillusioning so many people, myself certainly included. In yesterday’s Barron’s Magazine, the Dems’ ability to actually govern is questioned. That’s a “wow”. This small article details how Senator Max Baucus’ jobs bill (written in response to President Obama’s call for more economic stimulus), was gutted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for “speedy” passage:

“So Reid selected four provisions that he believes all Senate Democrats and Republicans can agree on: tax breaks for small-business investment; more money for highway construction; expansion of the Build America Bond program, and a payroll-tax exemption for employers hiring someone who’s been jobless for at least 60 days. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is openly opposing the payroll-tax exemption, a stance which has fiscally conservative Democrats near despair. ‘Democrats are in danger of demonstrating they cannot govern on the most basic level,’ a progressive Democratic party leader said last week.”

That’s right – the Dems are failing at the most basic level. The CPSIA saga and the politics/populism infecting CPSC leadership and policy these days are part and parcel of the same phenomenon. Rhinestones are this week’s victim. Who is next in line – you?

When are you going to say “ENOUGH”?!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Why Do Dems Want to Ban Rhinestones?

CPSIA – Waxman’s New Amendment – Needed Changes

Here is my full list of needed changes to the CPSIA:

Needed Changes to the CPSIA That Will Guarantee Safety and Promote U.S. Jobs:

1. Restore the CPSC’s authority to base its safety decisions, resource allocation and rules on risk assessment by giving the Commission the discretion to set age and product definition criteria for 300 ppm lead standard and phthalate ban. Eliminate the 100 ppm lead standard.

2. Definition of “Children’s Product” should not include anything primarily sold into or intended for use in schools or which is used primarily under the supervision of adults. Other explicit exceptions: apparel, shoes, pens, ATVs, bicycles, rhinestones, books and other print materials, brass, connectors, others? This would take these items outside the law, including tracking labels.

3. The standards/bans for lead and phthalates should be prospective from February 10, 2009, allowing the sale of merchandise manufactured in compliance with law prior to the implementation of the law.

4. Lead-in-substrate and phthalate testing should be a “reasonable testing program”, not mandated outside testing. Leave 300 ppm standard in place, but place burden on manufacturer and supply chain for compliance activities. Phthalate testing requirements should explicitly exempt inaccessible components, metals, minerals, hard plastics, natural fibers and wood.

5. Eliminate required future reductions in the lead-in-paint standard levels if technologically-feasible. Clarify that all inks are excluded from the lead-in-paint ban. Eliminate the definition of “technologically feasible”. Eliminate the “periodic review” provisions that require ratcheting up of requirements (e.g., periodic review of F963 to achieve “highest levels of safety” that are “feasible”). Eliminate the whisteblower provision.

6. Definition of “Children’s Product” should be limited to children 6 years or younger and should eliminate the difficult to apply “common recognition” factor of Section 3(a)(2)(c) of the CPSA. Definition of “Toy” (for phthalates purposes) should be limited to children 3 years old or younger and should explicitly refer only to products in the form used in play.

7. Restore ASTM F963 to voluntary standard status. Eliminate CPSC certification of laboratories (rely on the market to provide good resources).

8. Add penalties (up to and including felonies) for false or misleading accusations of violations of law or safety violations.

9. Rewrite penalty provision on resale of used product such that violations are only subject to penalty if intentional (actual knowledge or reckless endangerment) and if the violation led to an actual injury. Eliminate the “knowing” standard with its imputed knowledge of a reasonable man exercising due care. Completely reformulate penalties to restrict them to egregious conduct (including patterns of violations), reckless endangerment or conduct resulting in serious injury.

10. Restore the ability to export non-compliant product as long as the product is compliant with the destination jurisdiction’s law.

11. Mandatory tracking labels should be explicitly restricted to cribs, bassinets, play pens, all long life “heirloom” products with a known history of injuring the most vulnerable children (babies). Tracking labels would be voluntary on all other children’s products and if in use, can be used to trim scale of recalls (as with other data maintained by businesses).

12. Public injury/incident database restricted to recalls only. Private, confidential database permitted for other injuries.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Waxman’s New Amendment – Needed Changes

CPSIA – ICPHSO Update – Remarks of Gib Mullan, Head of CPSC Enforcement

Gib Mullan’s remarks on enforcement:

• Import surveillance staff is now up to 18 people.
• Using Commercial Targeting Analysis Center (CTAC) to stop things at the port. Can see what’s coming in before it arrives.
• Is working with the International Trade Commission, the folks responsible for HTS Codes (Harmonized Tariff Schedule). The CPSC is trying to “piggyback” on HTS code to identify the products of interest to the agency. Making “significant headway”.
• Imports samples rising at a rapid rate. Only about half of the samples fail.
• Use of XRF is one of the agency’s “secrets for success”. Will use for cadmium, too. Only one-tenth of items scanned are being sampled. This implies that less than 5% of items scanned fail. Most items are not inspected, which is just a numbers game.
• Field Investigation Division is back to a “growth mode”, in 55 locations with 89 investigators. Expanding to Internet surveillance. They have seen a surge in eBay sales of recalled items after recalls are announced. Interesting!
• Created email address for the public to report sales of recalled products. Now everyone can be on a cop on the beat, how wonderful. Hope I can still trust my kids. . . .
• Retailer reports are rising. Participants in this program include WalMart, Sears, Amazon and others. 20,000 reports a year. Also reports by email and on the hot line 800 number are jumping. The total number of reports is cresting at 50,000 per year. All of this is BEFORE the public database. [Soon a system will be fully constructed that will make doing business in the U.S. children's product industry impossible, something to look forward to (this is my thought, not Gib's remarks).]
• Field “blitzes” are increasing. Examples are pool and spas, drywall, drawstrings, cribs. This is a new activity although blitzes at the port are old hat, in my experience.
• Defect Investigations Division has 19 compliance officers.
• Recalls in 2009 DECLINED from 563 to 466. Number of units went up to an all-time high, 229 million units. Lots of big recalls in 2009. Should we feel safer now? I wonder . . . . Gib himself questions whether this is “good or bad”.
• Fast Track recalls are pretty steady. “Fast tracks” are recalls initiated by companies and brought to the CPSC’s attention by the company itself. CPSC-initiated recalls are steady in the 50-60 range. Cases stemming from regulatory violations declined from 167 to 47.
• Early warning system relating to cribs, bassinets and play yards is resulting in faster recalls. [No info on the availability of cribs and so on was provided, or the cost of those goods now.]
• Joint recalls with Canada was done first on February 19, 2009 (that fills in a hole!). Total of 13 joint recalls in 2009 and 16 in 2010 to date. Expects more joint recalls in the future, broadening to other countries. Gib thinks this makes it simpler for companies going through recalls. Again, not sure how I feel about this but am not opposed in principle.
• Regulatory Enforcement Division has 18 Compliance Officers now. This includes Chemical, Children’s, Flammability and Mechanical hazards. Letters of Advice (”LOAs”) fell a bit in 2009 by perhaps 12%. Only a small percentage result in recalls. In 2009, found 338 lead content violations and 118 lead in paint violations, mainly at the port. Recalls have come down considerably, almost to zero. Stops at the port are higher than that, but don’t result in recalls necessarily. Those are declining, too.
• Compliance Division now has 14 of its own attorneys
• Civil penalties rose a lot in 2009. Gib specifically noted that he was not being “gleeful” about penalties but simply noting that penalties are a more serious risk now. I am okay with this tone, it is common sense. Penalties totalled nearly $9 million. I just hope that penalties moderate and become more purposeful, rather than political.
• Made a STRONG point about fraudulent testing. The CPSC caught fraud in lighter testing and it led to criminal charges. They are working on another case now. This is great news as far as I am concerned. Cheating is a REAL problem (an actual problem, not an imaginary problem). The CPSC should find the bad guys and punish them. The resources of the agency are well-served if focused on removing these unscrupulous people from the market.
• The agency is forging new alliances with the State AGs. They have a monthly conference call with this group. This is the CPSC’s proactive effort to reign in the State AGs by making them part of the process. If this works, great. Again, we need to watch out for the lowest common denominator risk.
• Working with China on implementing “best practices”. Getting better, faster. China recalls went DOWN in 2009 and he anticipates improved safety in Chinese products. This, too, is a good use of agency resources. If we really are getting better, faster, Gib and his team should take a bow. Safety benefits everyone. Next up, consideration of the relationship between these initiatives and cost. Safety is an inherently economic subject. We need recognition of this basic fact.

I have omitted all reference to drywall here. This is a one-of-a-kind problem that seems unrelated to the CPSIA as far as I can tell. Likewise, I have not attempted to summarize the issues relating to ATVs and other tangential product/safety issues brought up by Gib. [He did say that repairs to the Rhino seem to be working well, btw.]

To Gib’s credit, I found his presentation quite balanced with no particular effort to frighten. I appreciate the choice of tone for what could be a quite intimidating topic.

Gib’s presentation was one of the few I can recall in the last two years on the topic of enforcement that did not materially raise my blood pressure or make me think dark thoughts about the future. Let’s hope that the CPSC can build on this base to restore trust among the business community. Safety and fear mongering is an unholy alliance. The CPSC needs the cooperation and trust of the manufacturing base.

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update – Remarks of Gib Mullan, Head of CPSC Enforcement

CPSIA – CPSIA Casualty of the Week for January 25

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 January 25, 2010

CPSIA Means No Bling for Baby

When Elementary School teacher Marcy Cohen had her first baby girl, she and her sister Lori Rockoff, a social worker, started making tiny accessories for the newest addition to the family. With only a few strands of hair to adorn, the sister team developed “no slip” clips and bows. Soon, their sparkling rhinestone creations were catching the eye of friends and strangers, prompting them to launch Pea Soup Accessories for Kids, which quickly became a leading manufacturer of hand-made children’s products. Their trendy product line includes a wide variety of accessories from embellished headbands to ornate socks.

Yet, while the sisters behind Pea Soup were busy supplying hundreds of high-end boutiques, Congress was working on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) to devise new testing standards of the metal and crystal embellishments that give Pea Soup accessories their unique flair. While none of Pea Soup’s products ever had any safety or lead problems, the confusing nature of the CPSIA forced the sisters to make substantial changes to much of their line.

“We did not want to take any chances with violating the new law,” says Marcy. “In order to avoid any risks, we scrapped many of the products in our line and had to manufacture new ones with different and compliant materials.”

As a result of the law and the cost of the required testing, Pea Soup was forced to significantly change their product line, eliminating much of the creative embellishments that made their accessories distinctive and leaving them with thousands of dollars worth of perfectly safe (and adorable) unsalable inventory.

For more information about Pea Soup visit, http://www.peasoupaccessories.com/about_us/

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/

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSIA Casualty of the Week for January 25

CPSIA – In Defense of Lead

Perhaps you have been expecting it. After all the “heat” in this blog over the past year, finally, my defense of lead. Hope you’re happy now. . . .

Last Friday, Commissioner Bob Adler posted his long-awaited position paper on lead and related CPSIA issues. Weighing in at 21 pages and 89 footnotes, Mr. Adler’s paper includes a thorough recitation of facts as well as his recommendations about the law. Among other things, he recommends making the lead exemption process more flexible and allowing clothing to be sold through charity resale shops. He also left the door open to changes that would ease the economic burden of the CPSIA on small businesses and low-income consumers. I agree with all of these changes – but I also think many other and more extensive changes are needed, too. I do not agree with the basis of Mr. Adler’s reasoning, however, and that makes all the difference.

Mr. Adler devotes about half of his statement to a detailed analysis of lead safety, reciting many facts not in dispute. Unfortunately, he then leaps to familiar conclusions that we have seen in recent Commission meetings and which are also found in many of his written statements. He does signal some extremely limited flexibility on lead, more or less hewing to the line put forth by Central Casting.

Ironically, Mr. Adler’s statement sometimes leaves you wondering where he stands, since he seems so sympathetic to both sides. It is frustrating to not have a clear picture of how he really sees the world. I fail to find persuasive his argument that the lead rules are good for us when they lead to ridiculous results like the banning of brash bushings on toy cars. Mr. Adler himself noted in the Learning Curve hearing that the brass bushings pose NO risk to children at a hypothetical tipping point with blood lead levels (in other words, the toys were incontrovertibly safe) – and then voted to ban them because the law compelled it. This should trigger a sense of outrage in the Commissioner . . . but it doesn’t.

To me, as an ex-lawyer, the illogical results documented in the Learning Curve case are intolerable. It is proof of a defective law and a defective system. Banning acknowledged safe products is a SIGN of problems, not something to rejoice in. As you know, it costs money to toss away perfectly good product. It also costs a lot of money to employ CPSC staff and Commissioners to decide silly cases like the brass bushing case. Something’s quite wrong if we are celebrating a system so obviously broken.

i believe there are fundamental flaws in Mr. Adler’s views on lead which prompt him to make recommendations basically defending a broken, illogical and self-destructive legislative system. Let me start by stating what I considered to be incontrovertible facts:

• Lead is bad
• Lead can be dangerous to children
• Harming children is bad, and unacceptable if reasonably foreseeable.
• Lead poisoning in children is largely if not entirely the fault of lead house paint and leaded gasoline

Mr. Adler makes the latter point in his footnote 83: “Clothing is not a significant source of lead poisoning. Far and away the greatest source of lead poisoning is lead paint in older housing, lead-saturated soil from gasoline emanated over the years from automobile exhausts, and lead-saturated dust (both from paint and gasoline).” [Other citations omitted] It is important to remember that Mr. Adler KNOWS that blood lead level problems stem from house paint and the long term consequences of years of leaded gasoline use (particularly in the inner city).

Mr. Adler tries to prove that lead is bad – but that fact beyond dispute. He goes further and builds the case that there is no “safe” level of lead, providing citations. Thus established, he then seems to justify the legislation’s strict terms based on the logic that if science hasn’t identified a safe level for lead, every instance of lead is therefore dangerous: “We may have currently reached the outer limits of our ability to measure negative effects of exposure to small amounts of lead, but that does not mean that no adverse effects are occurring. It basically means that we do not know.” Scary stuff. . . but what does he really think?

It’s hard to tell. Notwithstanding his assertion that no level of lead is safe, Adler seems oddly reassured by the permitted levels set by Congress: “[Given] that lead remains ubiquitous and often unavoidable, policymakers who are fully aware of lead’s risks, have sought to determine some level of lead that would be acceptable – at least until new information becomes available.” And these all-knowing policymakers (Congress) set a retroactive scheme of rapidly declining permitted lead levels. In other words, what was considered “safe” (meaning legal) on February 9, 2009, was “unsafe” on February 10, 2009, and what was considered “safe” on February 10, 2009 became “unsafe” on August 14, 2009, and what was “safe” on August 14, 2009 promises to become “unsafe” on August 14, 2011. Mr. Adler analyzes retroactivity under the CPSIA in his statement and then endorses it. Huh?

I fail to grasp the logic of either Congress or Mr. Adler here. Is lead in substrate dangerous or is it not? Is there a safe level for lead or is there not? Is lead safe on one day, and not safe on the next day? If so, can someone explain the science of that safe/unsafe trigger to me? I believe Mr. Adler’s accommodative attitude toward the lead standards and retroactivity is best explained by politics than by any notions of safety or risk.

It is even harder to take Adler’s stern tones on lead seriously when you consider the volume of lead elsewhere in a child’s life. Will regulation of lead in substrate in children’s products have any material impact on blood lead levels? Can anyone prove that it will, or that the cost of getting rid of all the lead is worth the cost? Remember that we could redeploy the same money for more impactful projects, like eliminating high lead levels in drinking water in schools or remediating soil contaminated with lead. We have already covered the fact that Mr. Adler knows that blood lead levels are fundamentally tied to exposure to leaded house paint and contaminated soil. It is also well-known that cars are coated in lead paint, legally under our laws. Lead is also in our food chain, is found in nature – and enters our bodies every day. [For data on this topic, see "Eat My Dust".] By obsessing on children’s products in the face of these facts, Congress ensured that its new legislation would fail to deliver measurable results.

In essence, the slogan “no safe level for lead” connotes a risk-free condition. “Risk-free” is an unrealistic standard and FAR too expensive as public policy. Mr. Adler uses this formulation in his lengthy analysis of used clothing sales: “In sum, I cannot state with certainty that a “safety” threshold of, say, 1 µg/dL blood level change would never occur from zipper sucking. . . . The fact that I cannot say there is no risk is why I characterize the choice [between allowing and banning resale of used clothing] as between bad and worse.” [Emphasis added] Mr. Adler is not following a legal principle here, he is asserting one. This is the precautionary principle, the famous Nanny State being implemented before your very eyes.

It is difficult to diffuse an argument based on the elimination of all possible risk. If we wish to organize our society around the elimination of risk, rather than the management of risk, we are doomed. All of us, not just the children’s product industry. The sad truth is that no one in the Federal government can prove that the policies of the last 35 years on lead caused injury. Mr. Adler implicitly asserts that our inability to prove that it DIDN’T is enough justification to throw the old system out. This is a belief system, not science.

The fear of risk is fanned by the threat of undetectable dangers. Mr. Adler notes: “To say the effects [of lead on healthy children] are not directly observable is not to say that that they are minor.” He amplifies this point by implying a link to children’s products to lead injuries without any proof of a relationship: “[MRI] technology has permitted us to identify permanent damage in adults stemming from childhood lead exposures.” Exposure to what, precisely? ABC blocks or the soil next to an inner-city apartment building in the leaded gasoline era? Mr. Adler’s assertion that we just don’t know what the harm is dodges the real question – how do you know there is any harm resulting from THESE USES OF LEAD? No answer is supplied because no one can answer that question.

The Adler statement paints a pretty compelling picture and the 89 footnotes were presumably intended to add academic gravitas to his arguments. However, not all academics agree with Adler. Here are videos of the presentations of two Ph.D.s who specialize in risk assessment in children’s products and lead issues taking an opposite view: Richard Reiss of Exponent and Barbara Beck of Gradient. They both note that the dose makes the poison and that only through true risk assessment will a sensible safety system be possible.

A couple brief notes:

- Mr. Adler talks a lot about retroactivity in the CPSIA. At the end of the day, he comes down . . . get ready for it . . . in favor of retaining retroactivity, but also for the recommendation of the Commission to make the pending 100 ppm lead standard prospective. I am not commenting on his arguments other than to say that I think relaxation of this provision would bring considerable economic relief without any possibility of physical harm to anyone. That’s enough reasoning for me.

- In calling for change to the lead exemption process, Adler is apparently willing to support only “a modest expansion in the amount of discretion granted to the Commission”. I find this rather curious and unexplained – he only wants a little discretion. Why? Does he worry that the Commission can’t handle the responsibility for full discretion? Again, why? I wonder if greater powers suggested this very limited recommendation out of a lack of “trust”, namely trust of future Commissions not hand-picked by this Dem-dominated Congress. No matter the explanation, it is curious indeed to see a Commissioner ask Congress to extend his Commission limited discretion.

- Adler devotes considerable space to sale of children’s clothing at resale shops. He ultimately recommends that charity resale shops be allowed to sell children’s clothing (possibly subject to posted Proposition 65-like warnings, see footnote 88). Adler’s logic in this section is puzzling to me. Is Adler trying to defend children or defend the CPSIA? He concedes that clothing has no history of causing injury from lead but is apparently troubled that it cannot be proven that a child couldn’t be harmed by clothing. Incredibly, he resolves the dilemma by distinguishing between resales made by charity shops and by for-profit shops, leaving the latter out of his proposed exemption. So is he approving the sale of unsafe products by charity resale shops to poor people so they can stay warm? Or is he saying that the clothes are probably safe, but can’t be sold by for-profit stores for . . . what reason? If the clothing is safe to sell, sell it . . . and if it isn’t, don’t. WHO sells it shouldn’t matter. But apparently it does.

An aside: Mr. Adler uses some strong language to discuss those of us who have pushed back on this law: “As I have waded into the debate, I have encountered many thoughtful, sincere, and anguished concerns about the CPSIA. I have also heard numerous overheated arguments, scanned many bloviating blogs, and read great numbers of error-laden emails (and letters) commenting on the law.” For those of you who don’t know this SAT word, “bloviating” is defined as “[to] discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner” on dictionary.com. I wish our government officials would stick to the issues and avoid attacking the exercise of Free Speech by U.S. citizens. This is particularly the case here, since after a long fight, many of those bloviaters have been proven right. I don’t expect thanks, but I think this is out of line.

I could go on, but I won’t. Mr. Adler’s voice in the debate is an important one and I appreciate his efforts to set the record straight. I don’t agree with him and appreciate the opportunity to reply.

You be the judge!

Read more here:
CPSIA – In Defense of Lead

CPSIA – Congressional Eager Beavers Push Anti-Cadmium Law

Congress’ Junior Scientists Club (Senators Klobuchar, Schumer and Nelson) sprung into action Tuesday to solicit co-sponsors for CPSIA knock-off legislation to ban cadmium and various other materials in jewelry. The delicious irony here is their choice of day to launch this effort, namely the day that Massachusetts elected a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate, an election result widely interpreted as a firm rejection of this Administration’s government intervention, you know, like this bill.

Let’s not forget that in 1972 the Federal Government created a little known agency to handle “threats” like this, namely the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Congress gave the CPSC the authority it needed to do its job. Oddly, today our Democratic-dominated government seems to think that only it can solve safety problems and further must LEAP into action to save us. I question this. Perhaps the CPSC even questions this.

Even more remarkable is the Dems persistence in pursuing a CPSIA strategy to “stop this cold”. Have these Senators learned nothing from the last 18 months of CPSIA chaos and pain, preferring instead to continue legislating without research, hearings or contemplation? Well, the approach “worked” once before and they did read an AP story about it. . . .

Someday these Senators will be up for reelection. Mark your calendars!

Here’s their letter for your reading pleasure:

Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:16 PM
Subject: Cosponsor the Safe Kids’ Jewelry Act – keep cadmium out of children’s jewelry

Senators Schumer, Nelson and Klobuchar are seeking cosponsors of the Safe Kids’ Jewelry Act. A copy of the draft bill is attached. Please let Stacy Ettinger in Senator Schumer’s office know, this week, if your boss would like to cosponsor the bill or if you have any questions about the bill.
Also, appended below, please find the January 10, 2010, by Justin Pritchard on the Associated Press’s investigation into use of cadmium in children’s jewelry and the adverse health effects of cadmium exposure (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34793600/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/print/1/displaymode/1098/ ).

SUPPORT THE SAFE KIDS’ JEWELRY ACT
Protect Children from Exposure to Cadmium and Other Toxic Heavy Metals in Children’s Jewelry

Dear Colleague,

We write to request that you consider cosponsoring the Safe Kids’ Jewelry Act. We believe that this bill is vital to protect children from exposure to cadmium and other toxic heavy metals in children’s jewelry. The legislation would prohibit the manufacture and sale of children’s jewelry – including charms, bracelets, pendants, necklaces, earrings, or rings – containing cadmium, barium or antimony.

Cadmium is a soft, silver-white metal that typically is used to manufacture pigments and batteries and in the metal-plating and plastics industries. Cadmium is a known carcinogen and studies show that direct exposure has adverse developmental and reproductive effects and can lead to kidney disease, among other health problems. Infants and young children are particularly vulnerable to the dangerous effects of cadmium and other toxic heavy metals. Children’s growing bodies absorb these metals at much higher rates than adults and long-term cumulative exposure increases toxicity.

This legislation is needed because test findings show a growing presence of cadmium in children’s jewelry as foreign manufacturers switch from lead – now banned in children’s products – to cheap substitute metals. In lab testing for a recent Associated Press investigation, chemists found significant use of cadmium in a variety of charms, bracelets and pendants sold at several popular retail stores.

In addition to banning children’s jewelry made with cadmium, barium or antimony, the legislation provides for enforcement of the ban, as well as further study on whether other heavy metals should be banned for use in children’s jewelry or other children’s products. Specifically, the bill —

· Protects children. Children are most vulnerable to the health risks from cadmium and other heavy metals. The bill bans the manufacture and sale of children’s jewelry containing cadmium, barium or antimony marketed for children ages 12 and under. Products covered by the ban include charms, bracelets, pendants, necklaces, earrings and rings. The ban would take effect 90 days from enactment of the legislation.

· Gives the CPSC flexibility to designate the most effective testing and certification requirements. The bill gives the Commission authority and flexibility to set stringent, effective testing and certification requirements for manufacturers to ensure the safety of children’s jewelry.

· Sets criminal and civil penalties for violations. Children’s jewelry containing cadmium, barium or antimony would be considered a “banned hazardous substance” under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”). The bill mandates application of criminal and/or civil penalties under the FHSA for any violations of the Safe Kids’ Jewelry Act. The bill requires the Commission to report annually to Congress on its actions to enforce the Safe Kids’ Jewelry Act, as well as whether the Commission imposed any criminal or civil penalties for violations of the Act.

· Does not preempt State or local law. A significant number of States and localities across the country are now considering enacting laws to ban sales of children’s jewelry containing cadmium and other heavy metals. The bill makes clear that the Safe Kids’ Jewelry Act would not preempt State or local laws relating to regulation of products containing cadmium, barium or antimony. The bill also clarifies that the Safe Kids’ Jewelry Act would not affect any enforcement action or liability of any person under State law.

· Requires CPSC to report to Congress regarding heavy metals which should be banned from children’s products. The bill requires the Commission to study and report to Congress within one year on whether other heavy metals should be banned from use in children’s jewelry or other children’s products.

We hope you will join us in supporting this bill. If you have any questions about the bill or would like to cosponsor the bill, please contact Stacy Ettinger in Senator Schumer’s office (4-7945 or stacy_ettinger@jec.senate.gov); Clint Odom in Senator Nelson’s office (clint_odom@billnelson.senate.gov); or Jonathan Becker in Senator Klobuchar’s office (jonathan_becker@klobuchar.senate.gov).

Sincerely,

/S/
Charles E. Schumer
Bill Nelson
Amy Klobuchar

Read more here:
CPSIA – Congressional Eager Beavers Push Anti-Cadmium Law

CPSIA – Washington Post Says Cadmium Issue is Overblown

Tell me it’s not true – we can’t panic about cadmium anymore?! The Washington Post thinks the CPSC may have gone a bit too far in demanding that every American throw away all their children’s jewelry based on a newspaper article they read somewhere: “Very little is known about cadmium’s potential health effects on children, [Dr. John Rosen, chief of environmental sciences at the Children's Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx] says, because it’s never been known to be a problem, ‘Pediatricians don’t look for it, they aren’t knowledgeable about it, and there are not any particular concerns about it.’” [Emphasis added]

The Post concludes: “So, while this is certainly no matter to pooh-pooh, and it’s important for the government to take whatever steps it must to keep poisonous metals out of the marketplace, it doesn’t sound like occasion to panic, either.” [Emphasis added]

We knew that Senators are absolutely ignorant of science so their foolishness can be understood, but what about the CPSC? Aren’t they on a different level? In the olde days, the CPSC used its professionals for their highly-refined expertise. Today, the staff brainiacs are used to bureaucratically shovel paper from one end of their desk to the other, or to practice falling in line. The folks at the top, the (Democrat) politicians, seem to have the same mastery of science as their Congressional overlords and a similar disregard for the consequences of their actions.

So Inez Tenenbaum went on a media blitz, ably assisted by her associate Scott Wolfson, and SLAMMED the jewelry industry. They had seemingly done virtually no homework (if reading an AP story doesn’t count as “research”), neglecting to take advice from the many Ph.D.s that they employ, and went ahead with an astoundingly irresponsible spree of rulemaking on the fly. And the consequences to them?

There’s the rub – there won’t be any. But there should be. This kind of tort is remediable in the private sector with lawsuits and damages. Not sure how easy it would be to prosecute such high ranking public officials for their conclusion-jumping. We can certainly count on our fearless leader Obama to COMMEND them for their precautionary actions. Surely by putting the jewelry industry out of business, they must have saved lives . . . somewhere. The nice thing about these folks, if they can assert it, it’s “true”. Or true enough.

What a sorry episode, and even with the Post on record with a calming and balanced summary of cadmium’s risks, the train already left the station. Expect the next attempt at an amendment to the CPSIA to include dramatic restrictions on cadmium. Congress will save us, don’t worry.

Hey, science is overrated. Trust me.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Washington Post Says Cadmium Issue is Overblown

CPSIA – CPSIA Casualty of the Week January 7

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 January 11, 2010

NEW SAFETY LAW CLEANING OUT “THE KIDS CLOSET”

Kitty Boyce worked for 18 years to build her resale shop, The Kids Closet, located in Rochester, IL, into a well-known resale shop. With its colorful signage, brightly decorated interior and whimsical whale logo, The Kids Closet built its reputation on offering customers quality second-hand children’s products at great values.

Shortly after being voted the “Number One Place to Shop Resale” by the Illinois Times, Kitty announced that because of CPSIA she was converting her store to sell predominately teen and adult clothing, home accessories and furniture, and changing its name to Remarkable Resale. The loss of revenue in her shop due to the changes in inventory forced her to lay off several employees.

“CPSIA has been devastating for us,” said Kitty. “We just decided to get rid of all the toys and furniture. It’s just not worth the risk.”

While the Consumer Product Safety Commission has temporarily stayed requirements for testing and certifying products, all resale shops still must comply with the new lead and phthalate standards. Realistically, resale shops cannot be 100 percent certain that the used items meet the new requirements.

Due to the over-reaching law, Kitty Boyce’s dedicated attempts to provide children and families with reasonably priced, gently used baby equipment, furniture and toys have been shut down. For Kitty and others, the risk of enforcement action by state attorneys general or private groups is too great. The result is that during one of the worst economies in decades, resale shops around the country are avoiding selling winter clothing for kids and other children’s products.

This winter, ask Congress how denying a perfectly safe used winter coat to a child whose parents can’t afford to buy a new one is protecting that child’s health.

For more information about Kitty Boyce, visit http://www.thekidscloset.net/closet.htm

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/.

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSIA Casualty of the Week January 7

CPSIA – My Recommended Changes to the CPSIA

As the CPSC prepares its January 15th report to Congress on recommended changes to the CPSIA, I have also prepared my list. As though for Santa, I am checking it twice. Rumor has it that the Waxman amendment is percolating again, all without hearings, either of the Commission or heaven forbid, in Congress. That’s open government for you. In any event, expect movement in the wake of this report. How much movement is the big question.

My list of changes is long. I have a separate list of non-legislative changes that I also recommend, which I will pass along in a future post. Please note that my list is not meant to imply any limitation on the agency’s ability to respond to emerging threats or changing conditions. In that sense, each recommended change is intended to incorporate a power by the CPSC to alter it (expand or contract) according to a risk assessment process in the future. It is also true that some of these recommendations can be accomplished by agency rulemaking. As we have observed, that rulemaking is taking forever or is seemingly stuck . . . so I put them all on my list.

I have a couple of other important objectives underlying my recommendations. First, it is critical that the law provide economic incentives tailored to the actual drivers of market behavior. The current law gives little credence to the way business people make decisions or how they interact. The CPSIA takes the simpleminded approach of ultra-strict standards combined with draconian penalties. This is ironic, given that the 2007/8 recalls that incited this law were EACH violations of then current law. Thus, it was NEVER a question of standards – only of compliance with those standards. Compliance issues are complex behavioral issues. Simply ratcheting up penalties to the stratosphere won’t change behavior much because the consequences of recalls were already very great. Something else is needed.

Second, we MUST assure that the agency is relieved of excessive bureaucratic burdens and distractions, and is given back the ability to focus on real threats. This means that we cannot always work within the context of the present CPSIA scheme, because it requires a great deal of wasteful investment by the CPSC. In addition, we must give discretion back to the agency. Congress needs to get out of the way and let the CPSC do its job.

My recommended changes to the CPSIA:

1. Restore the CPSC’s authority to base its safety decisions, resource allocation and rules on risk assessment.

2. Definition of “Children’s Product” should be limited to children 6 years or younger. The argument that young children play with the toys or possessions of their older siblings is not supported by statistically significant injury statistics. If children are not being harmed by this interaction, we should not have to spend billions on safety initiatives that will have little impact.

3. Definition of “Toy” (for phthalates purposes) should be limited to children 3 years old or younger. Human factors analysis by CPSC staff indicate that it is not age-appropriate for children over three to mouth their possessions. Again, there are no statistically significant injury statistics that support a contention that children over three have any material risk from mouthing toys.

4. Definition of “Toy” should explicitly refer only to products in the form used in play. This would eliminate uninflated globes from the mouthing rules. In addition, sleepwear should only be included in childcare articles to the extent the plasticized part of the sleepwear is intended or is reasonably foreseeable to be mouthed.

5. Definition of “Children’s Product” should eliminate the factor set forth in Section 3(a)(2)(c) of the CPSA. This change is intended to make determining which items are “in” and which are “out” more objective. The Commission already has in place age grading guidelines that supplant the “common recognition” factor and provide objective guidance.

6. Definition of “Children’s Product” should be limited to a narrow class of product, ideally just toys. There is no justification based on injury statistics to regulate apparel, footwear, appliqués, hair accessories, books, pens, bikes, ATVs, educational products, rhinestones and so on. Much of the morass befalling the agency over the past two years stems from this overly-broad definition.

7. Definition of “Children’s Product” should not include anything primarily sold into the schools or which is used primarily under the supervision of adults.

8. The standards/bans for lead and phthalates should be prospective from February 10, 2009, allowing the sale of merchandise manufactured in compliance with law prior to the implementation of the law. This is ABSOLUTELY necessary to protect the thrift store industry.

9. Make ANY AND ALL changes in standards after February 10, 2009 EXPLICITLY PROSPECTIVE, including those already implemented.

10. Phthalate testing should explicitly exempt inaccessible components, metals, minerals, hard plastics, natural fibers and wood. The statutory test standard should explicitly permit testing the entire product as a whole. California law, which may conflict with these definitions, should be explicitly preempted.

11. Eliminate the 100 ppm lead standard for August 2011. There is no scientific evidence that the change from 300 ppm to 100 ppm as a limit on lead-in-substrate will have any material impact on blood lead levels. However, the economic impact of this meaningless change could be severe – the equivalent of a high tax serving no known purpose.

12. Lead-in-substrate testing should be a “reasonable testing program”, not mandated outside testing. Ideally a combination of in-house testing, spot checking, XRF (allowed for this use) and supply chain management. The focus of the rules should be on safety, NOT on compliance. Third party testing can be included as a safe harbor for a “reasonable testing program”.

13. Small lot manufacturers are exempt from all testing requirements (but not the standards). ANY product which sells less than 25,000 units per annum is exempt from testing requirements.

14. Eliminate required future reductions in the lead-in-paint standard levels if technologically-feasible. There is no scientific evidence that this further reduction will have any material impact on health, but will have an economic impact on the marketplace.

15. Clarify that all inks are excluded from the lead-in-paint ban.

16. Modify definition of “technologically feasible” to take into account economics. It is demonstrably unfair to small businesses to apply a rule that works like this: “If Rolex CAN do it, Timex MUST do it.” A technological feasibility standard without reference to economics is completely unreasonable to small companies or companies relying on narrow margins.

17. Restore ASTM F963 to voluntary standard status.

18. Eliminate the “periodic review” provisions that require ratcheting up of requirements (e.g., periodic review of F963 to achieve “highest levels of safety” that are “feasible”). Would like to further gut this provision, as I do not see that the CPSC adds any value in the process but has significant procedural burdens. This is pure government waste.

19. Eliminate exceptions to preemption (such as Sec. 106(h)). Add effective preemption of State laws on lead and lead-in-paint. Interstate commerce demands that there be one authority on safety, not 51 independent regulators. The disorder in the marketplace from the Proposition 65-style “consumer right to know” laws (like Illinois’ new Lead Poisoning Prevention Act) needs to be eliminated by explicitly preempting them in the changes to the CPSIA.

20. Add penalties (up to and including felonies) for false or misleading accusations of violations of law or safety violations.

21. Make the resale of used product that violates safety standard a misdemeanor with very limited fines (like a traffic ticker). Can only escalate if done with actual knowledge.

22. Eliminate the “knowing” standard with its imputed knowledge of a reasonable man exercising due care. This standard is a 20/20 hindsight standard and is thus subject to considerable abuse. An actual knowledge standard would ease fears among regulated companies.

23. Completely reformulate penalties to restrict them to egregious conduct, reckless endangerment or conduct resulting in serious injury. The CPSC should have the authority to assess penalties when it deems it necessary, such as for repeated violations, but the practice should be that penalties are meant to provide incentives to good behavior ONLY (not for retribution or redistribution of wealth). Minor violations should either be handled administratively without penalties or should be subject to capped penalties akin to “traffic tickets”.

24. State AG enforcement should be limited to matters involving actual knowledge leading to injury or to enforce a CPSC order.

25. Restore the ability to export non-compliant product as long as the product is compliant with the destination jurisdiction’s law.

26. Mandatory tracking labels should be explicitly restricted to cribs, bassinets, play pens, all long life “heirloom” products with a known history of injuring the most vulnerable children (babies). Tracking labels would be voluntary on all other children’s products and if in use, can be used to trim scale of recalls (as with other data maintained by businesses). CPSC should retain ability to expand the application of tracking labels as warranted. The power to impose tracking labels was a part of the prior law, it should be noted.

27. Elimination of whistleblower provision entirely. There is no demonstrated need for this provision which only creates an atmosphere of distrust and abuse in the workplace. To properly ensure corporate team play, the government should refrain from paying spies to infiltrate the workplace unless there is a demonstrated need based on actual data.

28. Elimination of lab certification process ENTIRELY. The CPSC adds NO value to this process, and in fact slows the process of labs coming on board with new testing capabilities. I am not aware of any instances of fraud by labs but if there were to be fraud, we already have anti-fraud standards on the books to protect consumers. Give the CPSC the power to create or modify certification standards or requirements if warranted in the future. Place reliance on industry organizations or independent professional organizations for certifications.

a. For in-house labs, use established firewall rules as “but for” condition for companies to avoid liability. Otherwise, companies should bear full responsibility for testing done in-house.

29. Public injury/incident database restricted to recalls only

a. If allow unfiltered postings, companies need adequate time to respond BEFORE posting. There needs to be enough time to allow for inspection of product and to conduct tests.

b. Must post name and contact info to put info up on the DB. NO anonymous postings

c. Liability for fraud, including fines and possible jail time. Need to prominently note this on the DB. There needs to be a consequence for bad actors spreading bad information intentionally.

d. The terms of the DB should not permit postings of CPSC private remedies, like “do-not-sell” orders.

e. The current timetable is unreasonable, needs to be spread out to allow for more consideration of unintended consequences.

f. The current rules specify removal of inaccurate data that is TOO SLOW. Data needs to be impounded while being investigated (Zhu Zhu Pets wouldn’t have survived this scheme).

I also recommend consideration of an exception from the lead-in-paint rules for violations which have less than XXX grams per unit. These essentially technical or de minimus violations might be exempt from recalls but not from “do-not-sell” orders. I am recommending some acknowledgement that certain L-I-P violations are not worth the expense to recall. A strict liability standard for L-I-P is not necessary to protect the public.

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Recommended Changes to the CPSIA

CPSIA – Republican Senators Call for CPSC Advice on Law Change

Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Roger Wicker sent a letter today to Inez Tenenbaum asking for detailed recommendations on how to fix the CPSIA. You can see their letter here. In closing, they note:

“We all agree protection of our children is paramount. Congress can fix the CPSIA to ensure it accomplishes the safety intended without necessarily overburdening our economy. This can only be achieved with your assistance, the mandated detailed report to Congress, and increased transparency of your efforts to implement the law. We look forward to your report.”

Amen, brother!

The Commission noted in its meeting yesterday that the agency has not been given much time to get this report done. In addition, there seems to be little consensus on the Commission on the content of the report. Finally, as you may have figured out by now, I think there may be some value in talking about the issues in an open meeting. . . . So I call on the CPSC to get this report RIGHT. Be late, if you must, but get the recommendations done properly. AND, I call on the Commission to reverse its partisan and ill-considered decision to forgo public debate on the content of this report. Let’s learn from the lessons of Watergate and let the light shine in. Trust the public as they trust you, and let them hear you state your positions and work together as a Commission, not a collection of individuals.

It’s time to step up to the challenge, guys.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Republican Senators Call for CPSC Advice on Law Change

Next Page »