» children

CPSIA – The CPSC Finds a New Way to Scr*w You

Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc. — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:54:08 +0000

The banal and almost unnoticed adoption of ASTM F963 as a mandatory standard at the July 20th Commission meeting seems so innocuous. Is it, really? Commissioner Nancy Nord points out that this decision was a compromise of a Hobson’s Choice nature: “I joined in the majority’s vote only because of a negotiated agreement that we would stay enforcement of the testing mandate through December 31, 2011. Had we not reached this compromise, the testing requirement would have landed in the market’s lap in mid-October, just as stores are making their final preparations for the holiday season and small toy manufacturers are at the peak of filling orders. While I am relieved that companies will now have some time to find their way through the maze we have created, I have major concerns about why we are rushing to impose testing requirements to a standard we know is about to change.” What was that last bit? Ummm, well, the ASTM is actually updating the F963 standard right now. It will be done by year end. and as a result of the CPSC’s wondrous action this week, it will be a mandatory rule to test to an obsolete standard on January 1, 2012 – and probably necessary to test to the new standard, too! Doesn’t that sound great?! Now you can deliver TWO test reports when one might have sufficed. But think of how much safer kids will be if you produce two almost identical passing test reports rather than just one. Just think of it . . . . Ms. Nord explains: “When the stay of enforcement is lifted on January 1, 2012, most likely we will be requiring testing to an outdated standard. This puts manufacturers and retailers potentially in the situation of having to do redundant or perhaps irrelevant testing – testing mandated by the CPSC to the old standard and testing mandated by the marketplace to the new standard. Because we are taking the position that these testing requirements are rules and can only be changed (after August, 2011) by notice and comment rulemaking, there is virtually no way to get the new notice of requirements in place and labs accredited before the standard becomes effective. This puts toy manufacturers in an untenable position. Our response is that we will address these problems as they come up but, of course, in the real world, this is no response at all to the potential for confusion we are creating.” I no longer have a sense of humor, so you can rest assured that I am NOT making this up. Why the heck was the Commission in such a big, hot hurry to get this done? Again, Ms. Nord explains: “We are able to issue this NOR [notice of requirements] without following the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), with its notice and comment requirement, because the CPSIA allows avoiding the APA until August 14, 2011. After that, we must ask for and consider public input. Therefore, by putting out the NOR today, (1) we did not need to ask for and consider public comment, but (2) we did need to stay enforcement to prevent an unnecessary economic train wreck for the toy industry immediately prior to the holidays.” Does anyone remember that Bob Adler has said publicly at several Commission meetings and hearings that he hates stays and doesn’t want to vote for any more stays? So this vote avoids a public hearing and public comment (takes time, increases scrutiny, can limited flexibility) and it also avoids another stay process to extend this misery. The Dems on the Commission almost always vote as a pack. Can you connect the dots? Not surprisingly, Nancy Nord can connect dots: “However, if we waited, as sound regulatory policy would direct, we would have had to seek comments from the public. Apparently this public input process is too much of a burden for the agency, so if we have the opportunity to skirt the requirement we are more than happy to do that. Like a teenager with dad’s car keys, we want to squeeze in as much joy-riding as we can before the curfew hits. Our hasty decision does not achieve a net safety benefit, but it unfortunately does make things much more difficult than they need to be for the companies that are trying to understand and follow the law. . . . With its vote today, the CPSC has once again opted for rash action over rational action, to the quick and easy over the thoughtful and transparent. We know how to do better rulemaking; unfortunately, the majority today decided to push the ‘quick’ button instead of the ‘pause and think’ button.” Another Commission decision, another shellacking of the poor fools left serving children’s markets. After three years of this torture, I am just not surprised. When will our country wake up and notice this travesty?

Link:
CPSIA – The CPSC Finds a New Way to Scr*w You

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

Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc. — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:30:39 +0000

From the Washington Times (July 18, 2011): NORD: Playing around with toy makers Stricter lead regulations will cost jobs without making children’s products safer The Obama administration has recognized that excessive and unnecessarily burdensome regulation is a drag on the economy. As the administration has worked to promote job creation, it has publicized its efforts directing agencies to eliminate or revise unnecessarily burdensome and inefficient regulations. Apparently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not gotten the word. The commission’s failure to get the word is no more apparent than in its efforts to implement the Consumer Product Safety Improvements Act. The legislation was enacted after agency recalls of imported products illuminated the issue of import safety. The goal of the law is to assure that products intended for children are safe, a goal for which there is universal agreement. The devil, of course, is in the details, and the details of implementing this laudable statutory goal are devilish for sure. For the rest of the article, please click here .

View post:
CPSIA – Nancy Nord Op-Ed on the Wasteful 100 ppm Lead Standard

CPSIA – WSJ’s NINTH EDITORIAL Opposing the CPSIA

Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc. — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:34:07 +0000

REVIEW & OUTLOOK JULY 20, 2011 Toying With Deregulation Another agency ignores Mr. Obama’s executive order. Here’s a question for White House regulatory czar Cass Sunstein: Do Presidential executive orders mean anything? Only last week President Obama asked independent agencies to examine existing rules and get rid of the duds, but nobody is listening. Within days of the executive order, the Consumer Product Safety Commission voted 3-2 that it is “technologically feasible” to impose a lower limit on lead content in children’s products, reducing the level to 100 parts per million from 300 parts per million. The new limit, which will go into effect August 14, will mean one more round of hair-pulling for small business owners who will have to change their manufacturing processes and junk existing products that don’t meet the new standard. The three votes in favor came from Mr. Obama’s chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum and two other Democratic commissioners. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act passed in 2008 in a frenzy of concern over lead content in toys from China, and it has since tormented anyone who makes or sells bicycles, books, children’s jewelry and so much more. Its strictures have imposed costs for testing, recalls and other inconveniences without any reasonable correlation to the risks to children. “No sweetheart, don’t eat that bicycle!” According to the CPSC, the plan to require that products be 99.99% lead free is reasonable because manufacturers would still be able to find materials and because some products already comply. While the additional safety gain will be negligible, the change will do damage in other ways, causing companies to avoid recycled metal and plastic, which may contain higher amounts of lead. It will also raise costs for metal parts, potentially driving some businesses to substitute plastic for metal, or stop producing children’s products. In the bicycle industry, a quarter of manufacturers have stopped making kids bikes. Instead of fixing its manifest flaws, Congressional Democrats who wrote the law have shrugged off small business complaints and opposed any changes. Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton and Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee Chair Mary Bono Mack introduced reforms earlier this year that would revise the law and give the CPSC greater authority to make regulation decisions based on actual risk. The bill is waiting for a mark-up at full committee but any reprieve would likely come too late for businesses facing the mid-August deadline. Mr. Obama’s recent executive order is voluntary, but the President told agency heads that getting rid of red tape was an opportunity to “forge a 21st-century regulatory system that makes our economy stronger and more competitive.” Perhaps Mr. Sunstein will tell toy makers it’s the thought that counts.

Read this article:
CPSIA – WSJ’s NINTH EDITORIAL Opposing the CPSIA

CPSIA – You’re Only SAFE if It’s 99.99% Lead-Free . . . But Don’t Tell the EPA

Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc. — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:31:11 +0000

Last week, the Democrats took action to protect you and your kids from the perils of lead. As we have been relentlessly reminded by non-scientists, there is “no safe level of lead” – just ask Bob Adler and Inez Tenenbaum. Now, in the wake of the conclusion that reducing lead content from 300 ppm (lead-in-substrate) to 100 ppm will produce “minimal” health benefits (read, none), the CPSC Commission voted three Democrats to two Republicans to reduce the lead limit to 100 ppm. Reducing lead standards from 300 ppm to 100 ppm can be expressed a different way mathematically. This is a reduction from 99.97% lead-free to 99.99% lead-free. [ Credit to Anne Northup for the mathematics!] This will cost billions and the economic devastation was ALSO documented by the CPSC Staff in their analysis on the 100 ppm standard . Nevertheless, the non-scientists who rule the roost at the CPSC saw nothing but health upsides in this technologically feasible but economically absurd feat. And, as we know, injuries to children have an infinite value when you are unable to assess risk. The numbers work out – yes, the cost may be in the billions and the reduction in incentives will cost yet more, but the savings are infinite! Even one avoided injury is an infinite savings. Queue the tears . . . . What-a-deal! Ironically, last week the EPA bowed to political pressure and in an exercise of common sense, eased up on precautions against lead-in-paint in housing stock. Hello? Did you catch that one? Twelve Senators signed a letter in April to protest this proposed rule as excessive and damaging to small business, and bingo, something good finally happened. Olympia Snowe was so delighted that she put out a press release to celebrate it. Please note that the EPA acknowledges that lead-in-paint in housing stock is the principal source of lead poisoning in the United States. [It sure ain't toys.] They have previously acknowledged in writing ( lucid writing, actually ) that their rules on lead need to be measured and that the economic impact of their rules must also be carefully assessed. The EPA does not attach an infinite value to injuries, even to children . They aren’t idiots. Draw your own conclusions. Hello, Senators, anyone home? The foundation of the “no safe level of lead” slogan has been laid by the American Academy of Pediatrics, a political organization masquerading as a professional organization. This organization was aggressively and justifiably attacked by Anne Northup during the 100 ppm Commission meeting. It is rare to see anyone attack these people, perhaps besides me (not a fan . . .), but do they ever deserve it. Here is what Dr. Dana Best of the AAP told a House Subcommittee on April 7, 2011: ” Exposure to lead is amply documented to cause the loss of intellectual capacity. On average, children whose blood lead levels (BLLs) rise from 10 to 20 micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dL) lose two to three IQ points. More recent studies have shown an even greater impact on IQ of BLLs under 10 mcg/dL. Key studies reported a loss of 4 to 7 IQ points in children whose lead levels rose from 1 mcg/dL to 10 mcg/dL. These studies suggest that “low” levels of exposure – meaning BLLs less than 10 mcg/dL – cause proportionately greater harm than higher levels. . . . The medical and scientific literature are in substantial agreement that an increase of 1 mcg/dL in blood lead level is capable of causing the loss of approximately one IQ point in children whose blood lead level is under 10 mcg/dL.” [Enphasis added] Dr. Best, well-known for her fear of children licking bicycles , has previously posited “millions” of victims of lead-in-substrate . Despite taking such a dramatic stand, Dr. Best cannot seem to name even ONE victim or lead-in-substrate or provide a single case history demonstrating that such a victim has ever been located . . . anywhere. Not even one. Doesn’t matter, apparently. When you’re right, you’re right. But is Dr. Best actually RIGHT? Fascinatingly, when Dr. Best plugs the notion that driving lead concentrations below 10 mcg/dl will have some defined (definite) health benefits, she flies in the face of the official AAP Policy Statement on Lead Exposure in Children (recently restated on May 1, 2009). The Policy Statement does NOT support her assertions – and she is on the committee that wrote/approved the statement. You might say she got it wrong, or you might just say she’s a liar. Is it really possible to be that incompetent? Here’s what the Policy Statement says : ” Canfield et al recently extended the relationship between blood lead concentration and IQ to blood lead concentrations less than 10 g/dL. They observed a decrease in IQ of more than 7 points over the first 10 g/dL of l ifetime average blood lead concentration. . . . To confirm the adverse effects of lead on IQ at these concentrations, however, more children whose blood lead concentration has never been more than 10 mcg/dL should be studied. A reanalysis of the primary data from several of the prospective studies is underway to help resolve this issue. At the moment, however, these data have not yet been incorporated into policy, and the CDC16 and AAP24 both currently use 10 mcg/dL (Table 2) as the blood lead concentration of concern. “ [Emphasis added] The Canfield study is the study Dr. Best cites in her Congressional testimony above. Canfield predates the restated Policy Statement (obviously, or else it wouldn’t be cited), and thus forms part of the basis of the recommendation for further study. The AAP recommends further study to confirm its suspicions - and those studies aren’t done. Dr. Best certainly didn’t cite them. The AAP Policy Statement goes on to recommend: “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT: Fund studies to confirm or refute the finding that blood lead concentrations of less than 10 mcg/dL are associated with lower IQ. The next important step in lead research is conducting of studies in which confounding by socioeconomic factors is not so strong. Funding of studies in this area needs to be given high priority, as was done in the early 1980s when the question of effects of blood lead concentrations less than 20 mcg/dL was raised.” [Emphasis added] So the AAP acknowledges in its policy statement that the case is not exactly open-and-shut. Dr. Best, a member of the AAP’s Committee on Environmental Health , continues to bash away on the hustings with her hyperbolic and conclusory message. Perhaps she feels that no one will likely check her work or contest her blather, so why not? Senators? Congressmen? Does anyone care about the effects on business when it comes to the out-of-control CPSC? There are now 25 days until the 100 ppm standard goes into effect retroactively . Starting packing up, guys. Will Congress act? I have no idea – this is not, and never has been, a question of doing the right thing for you or me or for anyone, really. The Dems have an agenda, a political agenda, and your problems are beneath their consideration. I can’t say who will be the winners, but the losers are well-known by now.

Continue Reading:
CPSIA – You’re Only SAFE if It’s 99.99% Lead-Free . . . But Don’t Tell the EPA

CPSIA – Alliance for Children’s Product Safety Reacts to 100 ppm Decision

Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc. — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 22:23:16 +0000

The Alliance for Children’s Product Safety, a coalition of small business owners, manufacturers, crafters and entrepreneurs who are impacted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), issued the following statement regarding the CPSC’s passage of the 100 ppm for lead content rule today by a vote of 3-2. “Today, just three days after President Obama issued an Executive Order instructing the CPSC and other independent agencies to examine all rules for ineffective and unnecessary burdens and instructed the agency that decisions should be made only after consideration of the costs and benefits of new regulations, the CPSC enacted yet another costly rule that will do nothing to improve product safety but will cause further job losses in the children’s product market. The CPSC has already acknowledged that businesses will not be able to meet the 100 ppm lead standard without cost and disruption, and that consistent compliance with the new standard will be nearly impossible due to material and inter-lab variability and regulatory uncertainty. Most importantly, overwhelming costs imposed by the new standard will disproportionately affect smaller companies. On the other side of the ledger, the CPSC admits the health benefits of the new standard will be ‘minimal’. President Obama’s Executive Order states ‘Wise regulatory decisions depend on public participation and on careful analysis of the likely consequences of regulation. . . . To the extent permitted by law, such decisions should be made only after consideration of their costs and benefits (both quantitative and qualitative).’ The President’s order notes the duty of the CPSC to regulate for public health and safety ‘while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.’ The new rule fails Mr. Obama’s test. It is disappointing that the majority of CPSC Commissioners ignored the explicit terms of the President’s order governing regulatory excess. The 100 ppm standard is a prime example of the economic self-destruction caused by the CPSIA: the imposition of costly and burdensome regulations that don’t improve product safety. It is now up to Congress to fix the numerous ‘unintended consequences’ of the CPSIA before more small businesses are forced to go out of businesses and more jobs are lost.” The Alliance for Children’s Product Safety, Chaired by Rick Woldenberg, is a coalition of small business owners, manufacturers, crafters and entrepreneurs who are impacted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). For additional information, please visit www.AmendTheCPSIA.com or contact Caitlin Andrews at 202-828-7637.

Original post:
CPSIA – Alliance for Children’s Product Safety Reacts to 100 ppm Decision

CPSIA – NSSEA Calls for Letters on ECADA

Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc. — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:39:43 +0000

The NSSEA (National School Supply & Equipment Association) is calling for letters in support of the pending CPSIA Amendment legislation (ECADA). Please send the below letters BY FAX to your House Representative and to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. You can get the fax numbers off each Representative’s website. The mark-up may happen as soon as Monday June 20th (but is not scheduled yet to my knowledge). Now’s the time to stand up and be counted!!! There are two forms of letter below (Manufacturer and Dealer/Retailer). Please modify as appropriate. Letter from Manufacturers : Dear XXXXXX: I am writing as a constituent and concerned member of the National School Supply & Equipment Association (NSSEA) to express my support for HR 1939, the Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA). We urge you to support this important bill that fixes problems created by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) while maintaining the core provisions of this law that ensures the safety of consumers. [INSERT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS, INCLUDING NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES] The safety of our products and the safety of our customers are our top priorities. Unfortunately, we have encountered many problems in trying to comply with the well intentioned but overly burdensome CPSIA. We have been forced to spend thousands of dollars for unnecessary lead and phthalate testing and continue to deal with compliance programs that change multiple times to meet constantly changing rules. ECADA provides common sense reform to sections of CPSIA which have burdened our industry during these challenging economic times. Given your strong record as a friend of small business and manufacturers, I hope that I can count on your support for this bill. A costly new rule mandating a burdensome, unreasonable testing regime, the lifting of the stay on third party testing for lead substrates, and the retroactive application of a tighter lead standard despite overwhelming evidence showing that this new limit is not technologically feasible are just several challenges that my company will face this year if the reforms in ECADA are not approved by Congress soon. ECADA reduces the most excessive regulatory burdens created by CPSIA while maintaining protection for consumers. The bill enhances the Consumer Production Safety Commission’s (CPSC) ability to investigate complaints and prioritize testing based on cost-benefit analysis, and improves the CPSC’s public database by ensuring more accurate information. As manufacturers and small business struggle to recover from the worst recession in decades, it is vital that government does not impose costly and unnecessary regulations that have no positive impact and hinder the fragile recovery. I urge you to vote for ECADA to ensure that companies like mine can continue to provide quality products and services that are so important to our children’s education. Sincerely, XXXXXXXX Letter from Dealers/Retailers : Dear XXXXXX: I am writing as a constituent and concerned member of the National School Supply & Equipment Association (NSSEA) to express my support for HR 1939, the Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA). We urge you to support this important bill that fixes problems created by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) while maintaining the core provisions of this law that ensures the safety of consumers. [INSERT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS, INCLUDING NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES] The safety of our products and the safety of our customers are our top priorities. Unfortunately, we have encountered many problems in trying to comply with the well intentioned but overly burdensome CPSIA. As a distributor, we fear that the range of products offered by our suppliers will continue to narrow due to the costs manufacturers incur for unnecessary lead and phthalate testing. In turn, the needs of American students will be unmet, including those children with disabilities and special learning needs, because fewer specialized products will be available to our customers. CPSIA has caused considerable confusion in the marketplace due to the constantly changing rules and regulations associated with the law. ECADA reduces the most excessive regulatory burdens created by CPSIA while maintaining protection for consumers. The bill provides common sense reform to sections of CPSIA which have burdened our industry during these challenging economic times. The bill enhances the Consumer Production Safety Commission’s (CPSC) ability to investigate complaints and prioritize testing based on cost-benefit analysis, and improves the CPSC’s public database by ensuring more accurate information. Given your strong record as a friend of small business and manufacturing, I hope that I can count on your support for this bill. As small business struggles to recover from the worst recession in decades, it is vital that government does not impose costly and unnecessary regulations that have no positive impact and hinder the fragile recovery. I urge you to vote for ECADA to ensure that companies like mine can continue to provide quality products and services that are so important to our children’s education. Sincerely, XXXXXXXX

CPSIA – Tell me What You Think

Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc. — Thu, 26 May 2011 21:38:00 +0000

With the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) stalled for the moment, it’s a good time to reflect on where we are. I want to know what you think. As I see it, this is a case of the unstoppable force colliding with the immovable object. Guess where we are located? At the point of collision. On one side, you have the Republicans. They have always decently listened to our issues and tried to help. Only after the 2010 Midterm elections were they in a position to get things done. With the power of the House majority behind them today, they have taken the political risk and shown the political will to craft a reasonable, measured and, frankly, surgical amendment of the acknowledged defective CPSIA. Interesting sidelight : The legislative dynamic in Congress in 2008 seems long-forgotten. At that time, the Dems controlled both Houses and the dominant player was San Francisco’s own Nancy Pelosi. The CPSIA was negotiated during a time when she and her minions ran the show. True, there was a Republican President BUT owing to the media frenzy at the time, no one was willing to take the political risk of asking any questions. Congressional hearings were controlled by the Dems in both Houses and stage-managed them to achieve the right “tone”. Behind the scenes, the legislative negotiations between the parties at that time are best described as stiff-arms. The Republicans were jammed on many of the worst anti-business terms in the CPSIA and the sting never went away. This may be why they are so sympathetic to our cause today. Please keep this in mind when the consumer groups and the Dems cluck about the 2008 super-majority, bipartisan vote on the original bill. In fact, the Repbulicans would tell you that they had no choice. Sounds convenient, perhaps, but if you talk to them, you will quickly see that they really mean it. On the other side of this collision are the unscrupulous consumer groups and the Dems. This cabal works together for political advantage. The Dems, led by Henry Waxamn, see that they can use ECADA to score political points. They know that the Republicans don’t want consumer groups to send out letters to their constituents saying that the incumbent voted to endanger children with lead in toys. I know it’s sick, but that’s reality in Washington. This may give you some perspective on why people say Washington is “broken”. It is. The Dems want to score points against the Republicans, and the fact that we are being squished in the process is a cost they are willing to bear. Get it, your demise is a cost they are willing to bear, all for the “greater good” of politically endangering the Republicans. Remember, Members of the House are continually running for office. It takes true courage to do the right thing when you are exposed to Machievellian forces like Mr. Waxman and his merry band of manipulators. For this reason, I am fairly pessimistic about the prospects of this law. You get the same sinking feeling watching the talking heads on CNBC discuss the deficit and war over the national debt limit and hearing our national leaders talk blandly about the consequences of default on U.S. Treasuries. No big deal . . . . The politicians are playing with our lives, but act as though it is some of kabuki theater, Model UN gone mad. Do you think they are looking for a good grade, rather than doing the right thing for America? I rule out that the Dems are totally ignorant of science. I rule out that they don’t understand the data on injuries or what it means for their law. I think they simply don’t care about these things. Their profession is politics, and all that matters is the taste left the mouths of voters. A bill easing up on businesses over lead in children’s products has political weaknesses that the Dems prefer to exploit. The needs of our community are a secondary consideration. A distant second, too. So . . . what do you think? What do you recommend in this hot stove league? Can we do anything about this tragi-comedy, can we save products, companies, markets and jobs before the consequences of inaction suffocates them all out of existence? Let me know. Thanks.

View the original here:
CPSIA – Tell me What You Think

CPSIA – A Malefactor Exits Stage Right

Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc. — Tue, 24 May 2011 11:01:16 +0000

In the sad, pathetic CPSIA saga, several players have taken up their chips and moved on. Some, like David Strickland, found other industries to prey upon and destroy (good job with Toyota!). Others have just disappeared in the mist. I have not heralded the departure of Congressional staff who have played a role in ruining our businesses – they were just doing their jobs, if incompetently. But now one of the true movers and shakers behind the CPSIA has chosen to find other things to do. And I am speaking of the notorious Cindy Pelligrini of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Cindy’s last day to create havoc at the AAP is June 3rd; after that, she takes her act over to the March of Dimes. [What is the lead content in dimes anyhow?] Cindy deserves special mention, right up there with the Queen Bee herself Rachel Weintraub, as responsible for the mess we all find ourselves in. I have discussed Ms. Pelligrini in this space numerous in the past. - Here is Cindy Pelligrini ghosting federal testimony and intercepting questions for its purported author, the estimable Dr. Dana Best. Dr. Best is a real live doctor. Ms. Pelligrini told me she holds a degree in political science. . . . - Here is Cindy Pelligrini arguing against risk assessment because it would be too BURDENSOME on the CPSC . I practically weep over her compassion for the regulators! She also is the one who promoted the notion of background “contamination” of lead at 40 ppm (as if the presence of a naturally-occurring element is contamination), lower than the lead content of the dirt in Mr. Obama’s garden. [ Ibid .] - Here’s Cindy Pelligrini and the AAP misquoting or misstating the data from their own cited sources on lead poisoning . I guess the truth is what you make of it. - Here is Cindy Pelligrini admitting that she is using the CPSIA strictures to achieve a different end that has nothing to do with lead poisoning , namely the tacit ban of youth model ATVs. Is manipulation and distortion less offensive if you brazenly admit it? Wow, that’s a hard act to follow! The pressure’s on Rachel now . . . . As a fitting tribute to Ms. Pelligrini, I offer up quotes from scholarly articles cited in a May 11, 2011 lead scare email she authored with an AAP associate. Most of the citations were not provided with links, perhaps to make this exercise more difficult. Sorry, Cindy, I cracked the code! Here are a few nuggets: a. “Multivariable analysis indicated that residence in older housing, poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic black are still major risk factors for higher lead levels. . . . Risk of lead exposure by year housing built defined as follows . . . 1999–2004: low risk, built 1978 and later; medium risk, built between 1950 and 1977; high risk, built before 1950.” Jones RL, Homa DM, Meyer PA, Brody DJ, Caldwell KL, Pirkle JL, Brown MJ. Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead Testing Among US Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988–2004 . Pediatrics, Mar 2009; 123: e376 – e385. [Apparently, old homes come equipped with children's products with dangerously high lead content. How could there be any other possible explanation for this data?!] b. “CDC is conducting several activities to focus efforts on preventing lead exposures to children. First, beginning in 2003, CDC required state and local health departments receiving funding for lead poisoning prevention activities to develop and implement strategic childhood lead poisoning elimination plans. Second, CDC and its federal partners, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency, launched new initiatives to control leadbased paint hazards in the highest risk housing, addressing where successive cases of lead poisoning have been identified. Third, CDC and other federal agencies are developing a systematic and coordinated response to identify and eliminate nonpaint sources of exposure (e.g., lead jewelry, food and traditional medicines, and cosmetics). . . . The most common high-dose sources of lead exposure for U. S. children are lead-based paint and lead-contaminated house dust and soil.” Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . August 2005. [What, no reference to children's products?! Does the CDC know what it's doing? Come on, there's no safe level for lead . . . .] c. See my blogpost of May 11 for an analysis of this article. Self-selecting factors may explain the data on lead poisoning, not the hazard itself. Hmmm. Chen A, Dietrich KN, Ware JH, Radcliffe J, Rogan WJ. IQ and blood lead from 2 to 7 years of age: are the effects in older children the residual of high blood lead concentrations in 2-year-olds? Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113(5):597-601. d. “Lead can be found in high concentrations in three media to which children may be directly or indirectly exposed: paint, interior dust, and exterior soil or dust. This section discusses the distribution of lead in these media and their relationships to one another and to blood lead levels (BLLs) in children (Figure 2.1). Lead in tap water, generally a lower dose source of exposure, is also addressed.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Managing Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Young Children: Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention . Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.; 2002. [Again, the CDC screws up - no apparent awareness of the plague of contaminated children's products. So dopey, good thing we have the AAP and CFA to ensure that the 100 ppm lead standard is imposed on lead-in-substrate in children's products. It's a mere detail that no one has EVER produced a single victim of lead poisoning linked to lead-in-substrate in any jurisdiction at any time anywhere in the world.] e. Article discussing the later consequences of lead poisoning. Does not discuss sources of lead poisoning. “Residual and unmeasured confounding are always of concern in observational studies where all possible covariates cannot be assessed and those available are not measured with equal precision. . . . The inclusion of neuropsychological variables examined in this sample such as measures of executive functioning, attention, and IQ may have amplified the predictive vigor of the models. . . . The possibility that early exposure to Pb may lead to a higher risk of antisocial behavior in later life through its effects on neuropsychological functions is interesting and will be the subject of future analyses of these data. Variables independently associated with measures of antisocial behavior included maternal intelligence and lower birth weight. The association with lower parental IQ was not unexpected and a few studies suggest that delinquency is related to medical complications at birth.” Dietrich KN, Ris MD, Succop PA, Berger OG, Bornschein RL. Early exposure to lead and juvenile delinquency. Neurotoxicol Teratol. Nov-Dec 2001;23(6):511-518 [Emphasis added] [In other words, lead might explain the social dysfunction of some kids. Then again, so might many other uncontrollable variables well-beyond the ability of this study to analyze or even detect. Clear as mud . . . .] f. A classic “garbage in, garbage out” study, this article argues that a loss of an IQ point results in a corresponding loss of about 0.1 years of schooling. If, however, you note the conclusions or suspicions in the article referenced above in par. c above, you may conclude there may well be other factors at play, such as family income or poverty, age of housing, neighborhood setting, other family dynamics (such as educational background), and the basic intelligence of the kids affected by lead poisoning. Kids presenting as lead poisoned may be the least likely kids to be successful in school for other reasons separate from lead poisoning – in other words, lead poisoning might be a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. The article does not sonsider this possibility. Salkever D. Updated Estimates of Earnings Benefits from Reduced Exposure of Children to Environmental Lead. Environmental Research , 70:1-6: 1995. I could go on and on – Ms. Pelligrini and her associate provide bundles of citations all making similar points. Ms. Pelligrini leaves behind a record replete with misleading conclusions and head fakes. In the process, she accomplished little for kids but managed to ruin many businesses, drive entrepreneurs into other markets, kill jobs and eliminate valued products that kids, families and schools needed and wanted. She had a willing accomplice in the Dems who employ populism to get reelected. Damn the science, we need to make kids safer . . . even if we have no idea what that means! As I noted earlier this year, Walter Lippmann, founding editor of The New Republic and winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom1964, once cited the components of wartime mythmaking as “the casual fact, the creative imagination, the will to believe, and out of these three elements, a counterfeit of reality.” Counterfeit of reality, that’s our Cindy. Cindy, we’ll miss you! Not.

Excerpt from:
CPSIA – A Malefactor Exits Stage Right

CPSIA – CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) Mark-up Expected This Week

Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc. — Mon, 23 May 2011 09:41:48 +0000

Rumorville has it that the mark-up of the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) is due to occur this week at the full House Committee on Energy and Commerce this week. The Dems continue to play a game of poker with our livelihoods over the CPSIA, which is apparently how things are done in Washington. The mark-up is where the bluffs will be called. Fingers crossed . . . . Despite our having made rational arguments for amendment of this law for almost three years now and presented bundles of data and evidence to support our pleas, the Dems continue to hold out, claiming that the meager changes to the CPSIA effected in ECADA will “endanger” children. This pathetic reasoning is based on a ” zero sum ” analysis which holds that anything making life easier for businesses must necessarily endanger children. In other words, safety is a “zero sum” game in which gains earned by one side must come out of the pocket of another. Some kinds of negotiations are in fact “zero sum” games – like the negotiations over the price of a house. If the buyer wins a $1,000 price concession, the seller gets $1,000 less. Zero sum. Not all negotiations are zero sum, however. If a customer asks me to deliver 1,000 units in 30 days, and I can deliver the units today (because I have them in hand), I lose nothing but the buyer gains. This is NOT “zero sum”. There are many such examples. This kind of value-added change where one party gains but no one loses is known as a ” Pareto Improvement “. Skilled negotiators look for opportunities for Pareto Improvements as a way to close gaps or to make any negotiation more valuable to the parties. This option has been ruled out by smallmindedness among consumer groups who depends on favors from Dems to stay in this game. The notion that easing up on the lead-in-substrate rules or the excessive testing rules will necessarily endanger children is both offensive and ignorant. First of all, this argument depends on allocation of the moral higher ground exclusively to the consumer groups and CPSIA zealots. Please, spare me. We in the children’s products industry have devoted our working lives to serving children and have as powerful a claim to making kids’ lives better as any consumer group. I do not accept that consumer groups have greater integrity or are more virtuous than companies spending their own money and devoting their days and nights creating products to make kids lives better. They can’t gain the higher ground simply by patting themselves on the back. Consumer group claims of endangerment need more proof than their hearty self-congratulations. Second, their assertions just don’t make any sense. The CPSIA rules are asphyxiatingly tight, far beyond what is required to make kids “safe” (whatever that means). We all grew up without the benefit of the consumer groups’ meddling “insights”. I believe a good percentage of you are able to read this blog without drooling all over your PC – perhaps we never needed all this protection in the first place. Perhaps indeed. Assume for the sake of argument that we could figure out EXACTLY what level of protection was needed to keep kids “safe”. Since there is room for doubt about the need for ANY of these protections (putting aside the Democrats’ need to create a basis for reelection), we can posit that the “correct” level of protection is somewhere between where it was when we were growing up and the current levels of CPSIA strangulation. This suggests that an easing would not come out of anyone’s pocket but would in fact be a classic Pareto Improvement. To put things in sharper perspective, let me diverge for a moment to discuss the Cubs. The Cubs triumphant return to Fenway Park this week resulted in a 15-5 drubbing by the Red Sox. Ouch. Let’s say that the Red Sox took pity on the Cubs and stopped scoring runs at 13-5. Would the Red Sox be any worse off for this “concession”? No. What if the score was reduce to 10-5 or 6-5? The Red Sox still win the game. The reduction in Red Sox runs does not affect the Red Sox adversely until they are reduced to 5 runs (tie game). This is analogous to the changes proposed by the Republicans in ECADA. Kids are kept safe but businesses are much less encumbered. This is a win for our society. I should point out that Republicans have children and families and care about kids and families as much as anyone else. They also voted en masse for the CPSIA in 2008. I find the moral higher ground arguments by the Dems and consumer groups to be fallacious and manipulative. Do they really think they can contend that Republicans used to care about kids and now just care about businesses? That’s akin to arguing that we are all idiots. We’re not. I certainly hope Waxman and the Dems let this needed change pass with Dem support. It’s time to move on, guys.

View the original here:
CPSIA – CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) Mark-up Expected This Week

CPSIA – Quick Observations about the New CPSIA Amendment Draft

RallyReporter — Tue, 10 May 2011 21:18:00 +0000

The revised amendment of the CPSIA (oddly titled ” Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 “) published today is due to be “marked up” by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade on Thursday.