CPSIA – More Good News and Bad News

We trust our government, right?

CPSIA – AAP, Get a Calculator!

In my continuing exploration of the misuse of data by consumer groups to prove up the “need” for the CPSIA, it occurred to me that Dr. Dana Best of the American Academy of Pediatrics can’t multiply. She needs a new calculator.

Just an aside: Japanese government officials announced today that radiation OUTSIDE the disabled reactors at Fukushima have now reached LETHAL levels:

“Water in an underground trench outside the No. 2 reactor had levels exceeding 1 sievert an hour, a spokesman for plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. told reporters in the capital today. Thirty minutes of exposure to that dose would trigger nausea and four hours might lead to death within two months, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preventing the most-contaminated water from leaking into the ground or air is key to containing the spread of radiation beyond the plant. A partial meltdown of fuel rods in the No. 2 reactor probably caused a jump in the readings, Japan’s chief government spokesman said today. ‘There’s not much good news right now,’ said Gennady Pshakin, a former IAEA official based in Obninsk, the site of Russia’s first nuclear power plant.” [Emphasis added]

The Japanese situation is a real crisis. The AAP wants you to think lead is also a crisis. It’s not.

In my post yesterday, I reported on Dr. Dana Best’s testimony in front of the CPSC Commission on February 16th about the purported effects of even trace amounts of lead on the intelligence of our children. While Dr. Best speaks for the AAP on occasion, I know that she doesn’t always write her own testimony. Sometimes she reads words written by other people under her own name. In the Spring of 2008, I went looking for Dana Best, and in response to a voicemail I left at her office, Cindy Pelligrini of the AAP called me back. Dana Best never called me back. I was calling in reference to the then pending Illinois lead labeling law which was being propelled by Dr. Best’s seminal House testimony on lead (September 20, 2007). In that phone conversation, Ms. Pelligrini acknowledged to me that she had written the September 20th testimony, not Dr. Best, and as a consequence, was the “right person” to talk about its contents. Ms. Pelligrini’s qualifications to write House testimony on lead on behalf of a professional association of pediatricians? According to her in our conversation, she holds a degree in political science. She is not a doctor and she is not a scientist as far as I know.

So is it surprising then that Dr. Best got all tangled up in numbers in the recent CPSC testimony? As I noted yesterday, Dr. Best asserted the following: “When averaged across even a modest population of children, the public health harm caused by lead is significant. Considering that there are about 75 million children in our nation, impacting one-half of one percent of all children would mean an exposure of 3.75 million children. . . . For one million children, [the loss of lifetime income from one IQ point per child] would total over $8.3 billion.” [Emphasis added]

Okay, let’s break out our calculators and check Dr. Best’s math. 75 million x 0.005 = 375,000. Oops! Didn’t she say that “one-half of one percent of all children” is 3.75 million kids? Hmmm.

[Sidebar - she's almost right about the population of kids, but not quite. According to childstats.gov, there were 75.2 million children living in the U.S. in 2010. Of course, only 50.4 million were under 12 years of age, basically the age bracket covered by the CPSIA. This is not a calculator error, this is just more junk statistics from a so-called "expert". I hope the CPSC Commission employs a fact checker!]

I think that’s a big difference. 3.75 million children is 1-in-20 but 375,000 is 1-in-200 (based on a population of 75 million children, an inflated number). Using the more realistic population number of about 50 million, Dr. Best’s 3.75 million number is 1-in-13 children. Dr. Best’s number suggests that there is likely to be two or more lead poisoning victims in EVERY classroom of children in our country. Do you believe that?

Give me a break. The problem is that there are many people out there who might believe this nonsense. Some of them may be your elected representatives.

Dr. Best goes on to “illustrate” the scope of the “cost” of this poisoning, all based on her assumption of 1-in-13 children losing IQ points. She illustrates the “cost” to society of the loss of a single IQ point on a seemingly “modest” population of 1 million children. [Don't forget, she hasn't produced even ONE victim yet.] Since she is apparently severely math-challenged, let me help you here. One million children is (roughly) 2% of the age range covered by the CPSIA. In other words, it’s about 1-in-50 kids. Her “modest” assumption implies at least one brain-damaged child in every other classroom in America, all because of lead-in-substrate in children’s products. Her illustration is intended to show that the incredibly “high” cost of the purported lead epidemic justifies the extreme measures of the CPSIA to eliminate lead down to trace levels in children’s products.

Do you believe her? Why, exactly? If there are so many damaged children from lead-in-substrate in children’s products, why can’t the AAP come up with a few and show real case histories? Why won’t they talk about real data?

I am not impressed. The AAP holds itself out as an “expert” but puts out junk statistics to back up junk science recommendations. We are being scammed.

You MUST demand of your Congress that they won’t be fooled. The age of junk science needs to be brought to an end! Let your voices be heard!

Read more here:
CPSIA – AAP, Get a Calculator!

CPSIA – Good News and Bad News

Here’s the scoop: there is no safe level for lead but apparently there ARE safe levels for radiation.

According to reports today, the radiation drifting over from Japan is “harmless”. No one should worry one little bit even though the Japanese radioactive material is now on the EAST Coast of the U.S.: “Since last week, the officials have tracked the radioactive plume as it has drifted eastward on prevailing winds from Japan — first to the West Coast and now over the East Coast and the Atlantic, moving toward Europe. . . . On Monday, European officials said the plume had reached the East Coast after drifting over North America. One station that detected the fresh radioactivity is in Charlottesville, Va., officials said.”

This is not a problem, believe me. For one thing, it’s not lead, for heavens sake – it’s only iodine-131, iodine-132, tellurium-132 and cesium 137. You probably put that stuff on your cereal, tough guy!

The radiation levels are so low that the experts won’t release them. They probably don’t want to bother us, the levels are so low. “The global network of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, an arm of the United Nations in Vienna, has detected the movements of the plume. The organization’s mandate is to monitor the global ban on the testing of nuclear arms, and it has more than 60 stations that sniff the air for radiation spikes. The group has declined to make the recent findings public, but it shares its information with 120 member states, some of which have divulged the status of the plume’s movements.”

Experts point out that radioactivity is everywhere, what’s the problem with a little more???

The federal government apparently agrees with this guy: “While the news of these radioactive substances being detected may startle some residents, the EPA has emphasized that the normal daily dose of radiation is 100,000 times higher than the radiation found at these monitoring stations. Every day, people are exposed to radiation unknowingly. Radiation is present in food, air, water, and even our homes, all of which are natural sources of it. Increased exposure to radiation can come from medical procedures and industrial occupations as well.” [Emphasis added]

This is in interesting contrast to lead which as everyone knows is dangerous down to one lone, little atom. I know this because pseudo-scientists like American Academy of Pediatricians (fearful of bicycle licking!) and Consumers Union (terrified about 4th graders playing brass instruments!) have repeated over and over that there is NO safe level for lead. NO safe level, kids! They’re experts so they must know, right??? At least they say they’re experts . . . .

These folks pushed Congressional patsies to impose an outright ban on ANY children’s product that might emit ANY lead into the human body. [Section 101(b) of the CPSIA] The CPSC Commission (really, the Democrats on the Commission) helpfully interpreted Section 101(b) to refer to ANY lead, meaning one atom. Nothing ON EARTH can be exempted on this basis, so nothing has been given a pass under the lame-o exemption provision of the act. Had troubling finding choices in new children’s bikes? Want to buy a youth model ATV? Remember the days when you could buy rhinestones to embellish your children’s shoes or pants or in the form of cheap jewelry? You can thank Section 101(b) for this absurd situation. L&K to the AAP and CU (and let’s not forget the Queen Bee of the zealots, Rachel Weintraub of the CFA) for all this safety!

Thank heavens that AAP, CU and CFA aren’t worried about radioactivity. That means there MUST BE safe levels of radioactivity . . . . I see, Fukushima prefecture spinach or milk isn’t really dangerous – but it will give you a healthy glow!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Good News and Bad News

CPSIA – What Does the CPSC Know that the EPA Doesn’t?

At the recent 100 ppm hearing before the CPSC Commission, Nancy Nord asked presenters to submit regulations put out by other agencies restricting lead in our environment. She presumably wanted perspective on whether a reduction to 100 ppm lead-in-substrate content in children’s products would actually improve health or instead, simply further punish the fools who stubbornly remain in the children’s products market.

I submit here EPA regulations on permissible lead levels in play yards and residential dirt. Pleae note that lead in dirt is soluble, so it actually presents a health risk to children. In 2001, the EPA implemented a revised legal/regulatory architecture to protect children from lead-in-paint and lead in the environment. The regulations (40 CFR Part 745) are entitled “Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule”.

I think this is an interesting rule because we sell sand and soil as part of children’s science kits. Hmmm. The CPSIA restricts lead content in everything we sell, even fossils and rocks, hence our well-known lead labels. Does the EPA permit something that the CPSC forbids?

Guess!

Consider what the EPA said about its new regulations:

“EPA is also promulgating amendments to the regulations for leadbased paint activities under the authority of TSCA section 402 (15 U.S.C. 2682) and to the State and Tribal program authorization requirements under authority of TSCA section 404 (15 U.S.C. 2684). These changes are needed to ensure consistency among the various regulations covering lead risks under TSCA.”

Consistency seems to be a concern of the EPA. How quaintly passé.

Nonetheless, the EPA seems to understand what is at stake for American children when it comes to lead:

“Reducing exposure to lead has been an important issue for EPA for more than 2 decades. Young children are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of lead because their nervous systems are still developing and they absorb more of the lead to which they are exposed. Many of the health effects associated with lead are thought to be irreversible. Moreover, the effects at lower levels of exposure are often asymptomatic. In light of the impacts on children and the nature of the health effects, EPA’s goal is to eliminate exposure to harmful levels of lead.” They get it, right?

Uh-oh. The EPA veers away from the current script . . . .

“First and foremost, the Agency faces the difficulty of determining the level at which to set the standards given the uncertainties in information on cause and effect–what environmental levels in which specific medium may actually cause particular blood lead levels that are associated with adverse health effects. The Agency has tools, which are only generally consistent, that show that certain increases in environmental lead levels are associated with certain increases in blood lead levels. Given the range of uncertainty shown in its analysis supporting the establishment of a hazard level under this rule, EPA has developed a technical analysis that considers hazard standards for dust and soil at the lowest levels at which the analysis shows that across-the-board abatement on a national level could be justified. EPA recognizes, however that for any levels of lead in dust or soil judgment must be exercised as to how to treat the medium, and interim controls as well as abatement could be effective.” [Emphasis added]

Sounding like administrators from another planet, the EPA continues:

“In performing its analyses for this rule, the Agency could not quantitatively compare interim control strategies with abatement strategies because there are only limited data available on the effectiveness of interim controls over extended periods of time, and those data which are available are not suitable for quantitative comparisons with abatements. In comparing interim control strategies with abatement strategies, one must make a number of assumptions
concerning the costs of administrative management, and frequency of monitoring and renewal over the planning horizon. For the 50–year planning horizon which the Agency used in its dust and soil analyses, one would have to compare the time stream of interim control expenses, for as long as such expenses are necessary, and weigh the possible differences in potential blood-lead reductions, to make a fair comparison of abatement and interim control strategies.” [Emphasis added]

Later, the EPA warns: “Also, identification of lead-based paint hazards under this regulation is sure to have impacts that could be expensive even though the range of expenses is, itself, difficult to resolve because of the uncertainty of individual behavior and the willingness of individuals to accept risks that EPA may identify. Thus, if EPA were to choose standards that are too low, the public could be unable to distinguish between trivial risks at the low levels of lead from the more serious risks at higher levels. This could result in clean up for little to no health benefit, or conversely, it could result in almost no clean up because persons would question the credibility of the ‘hazard’ determination.” [Emphasis added]

Clearly the EPA just does not get around very much. Damn the expense, man, there is NO safe level of lead!!!

Importantly, the EPA seems to grasp the difference between CORRELATION and CAUSATION. I wish Congress understood that idea a bit better. . . .

“For dust and soil, EPA had substantial raw data on environmental levels and blood lead levels, even though it faced substantial uncertainty in correlating the levels. . . . If EPA were to set unreasonable standards (e.g., standards that would recommend removal of all lead from paint, dust, and soil), States and Tribes may choose to opt out of the Title X lead program and property owners may choose to ignore EPA’s advice, believing it lacks credibility and practical value. Consequently, EPA needed to develop standards that would protect children without wasting resources by chasing risks of negligible importance and that would be accepted as reasonable by States, Tribes, local governments, and property owners.”

Hope you weren’t eating while you read that last bit. Sorry!

I could quote from this document all day. In light of the nightmare that is the CPSIA, the EPA rules read like some sort of comedy routine. Unfortunately, the joke is on us.

So what did the EPA actually do?

“As stated in Unit II.F.3., today’s rule establishes two hazard standards for bare residential soil; 400 ppm for play areas and an average of 1,200 ppm for the rest of the yard. [See 40 CFR §745.65(c)] EPA recommends that organizations and individuals consider some action in certain areas even where levels in bare soils are below the hazard standard, particularly, if there is a concern that children 6 years and under might spend substantial time in such areas, or if there is concern that the bare soil in such areas may contribute to lead levels in the dwelling, or in the play areas. However, this rule does not mandate that any action be implemented when levels are found to be below the lead hazard standard. Moreover, the kind of response that organizations and individuals might consider could include modest actions such as planting grass (or other ground cover) to more extensive actions such as covering the bare soil with several inches of clean fill.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The standard for play yards (sand) is 400 ppm lead and for bare soil is 1200 ppm lead. If we put a bag of dirt in a child’s science toy, the current CPSC limit is 300 ppm and at this very moment, the Commission is mulling a reduction of the lead limit in that soil to 100 ppm. This change will make more science products either illegal or unsalable for children under 13 years of age. We don’t believe lead labels solve the problem.

The CPSC’s rule on our products will have no effect on play yards, bare soil or anything except items defined as “Children’s Products” under the incomprehensible rule adopted by the Commission.

The longer this goes on, the more I am convinced that only a new government solves the problem. Sad . . . but true.

Read more here:
CPSIA – What Does the CPSC Know that the EPA Doesn’t?

CPSIA – My Answer to Slate.com on the CPSIA Database

Dear Mr. Noah,

I read with interest your March 8th article on the CPSC database entitled “Who’s Afraid of the CPSC?” and was disappointed at the inaccuracies in the piece and your blanket dismissal of the business community’s legitimate concerns about the database. The database has devolved into a divisive partisan issue simply because of the utter refusal of consumer groups and their Congressional allies to acknowledge the flaws in the database as well as the law that established it – the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).

I’ll try to address the inaccuracies one-by-one:

Database cost – $3 million or $29 million? The cost figure of $3 million sparked a public dispute between the CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and her fellow Commissioner Anne Northup at a House hearing last month. In response to Ms. Tenenbaum’s testimony on the cost of the database, Ms. Northup testified that the figure of $3 million had never been shared with the CPSC Commission and that the only database cost figure she was familiar with was $29 million. Interestingly, in April 2010, the Associated Press reported, based on information provided by the CPSC, that the cost of the http://www.saferproducts.gov/ website would be about $20 million, and the CPSC apparently saw no reason to update the media with the good news that the cost had shriveled to $3 million until the February 2011 hearing. . . . Hmmm.

The supposedly noncontroversial CPSIA database. Why didn’t anyone kick up a fuss about the database in 2008? A better question is “Why didn’t Congress listen when the business community protested?” Here’s what I said in a letter to each Congressional conferee dated June 25, 2008: “While we support public notice of recalls, we oppose a national database of reports of injury, illness, death or risk of injury. This forum will not be subject to appropriate findings of fact and thus will be a forum subject to considerable abuse. In a society where tort lawsuits are an ever-present risk for all businesses, a risk that can wipe out a lifetime’s work in a heartbeat, the very real potential for abuse by competitors or mischief-makers far outweighs the public’s ‘right to know’. Once the CPSC has adjudicated a case appropriately, made a reasonable finding of fact and determined the right course of corrective action, public notice would be appropriate.”

I continued to try to make my point to CPSIA Congressional conferees in another letter dated July 21, 2008, just ahead of final consideration of the CPSIA: “CPSC Searchable Database: The well-intentioned idea for complete safety transparency is an open invitation to mischief makers. This is a real threat to our business, as we know from hard experience. The better way is to let the CPSC filter this data first. Please remember, even YouTube will take down videos on request. The proposed law won’t give defenseless toy companies the same recourse as YouTube. Is that an appropriate way to regulate an entire industry?”

It wasn’t only me. Many others in the business community opposed the creation of a database that would contain inaccurate or misleading accusations and complaints. That’s the story of the CPSIA in a nutshell – no one was listening when the law was originally drafted, and now three years later, we are fighting City Hall to restore common sense to federal safety law. Please consider the assertion that consumers really need this database, that it is essential to their children’s safety. In fact, there are many places on the Internet where consumers can and do post their experiences without controversy. Why would a federal database be a greater cause for concern? Well, for one thing, this one is called “SaferProducts.gov” and is sponsored by the federal government. Notwithstanding the lawyer language disclaimers all over the website, it is crystal clear that the public will place a lot of credence in these postings. After all, why would our federal government allow misleading or inaccurate information to be posted on a website called SaferProducts.gov? Ms. Tenenbaum is famous for her defense of “dot gov” websites: “I say don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, except what you read on Web sites that end in dot gov.” [Keynote speech at ICPHSO, February 17, 2010] She may not be the only one who feels this way.

The NHTSA database exists; ergo a CPSIA database is a good idea? The NHTSA database can be distinguished in several important ways: (a) auto accidents are a leading cause of death in this country (consumer products are not), (b) every use of automobiles is known to be hazardous and the risk to human life from reckless use of cars is obviously magnified (not true for consumer products), (c) the auto industry is one of the largest components of our entire economy – we all use cars and many of us owe our livelihoods to automobiles in one way or the other (the average sale of consumer products is far less than a car), and (d) at all levels, the auto industry is highly consolidated among a relatively small number of massive companies that are well-prepared for litigation and regulatory issues (consumer products is not a consolidated market and there are many small companies involved in the trade). I think GM, Ford, Toyota and other multi-billion dollar automakers can handle the burden and risk of a database of consumer deaths and serious injuries from use of their products. Our family business, Learning Resources, on the other hand, ain’t no GM or Toyota. The NHTSA database is NOT an appropriate precedent for consumer products for all of the foregoing reasons.

“One of the ironies in Pompeo and others screaming bloody murder that the database will kill jobs is that most of the appliances likely to get dinged in the database won’t even be American products.” This remark completely misses the point, unfortunately. It is American companies that are going to be hurt by the misinformation in the database, whether those companies are manufacturers, importers, private labelers or retailers. Even worse, thousands of American small businesses are going to be put at risk with no practical means to defend themselves. Is this the “American Way” at work? Who will pay when jobs are lost from companies shifting away from this market or dropping products to limit exposure to liability? This is just going to be another self-inflicted economic injury from misguided and overzealous regulation.

Whether the product is made in China, the U.S. or India, it should not matter from a safety perspective. Companies must ensure that they market safe and appropriate products no matter where the products are made. The reality is that every product can break, and accidents and other bad things happen to good people. The database will be unforgiving and if filled with post-it-and-forget-it garbage, will harm innocent victims – American companies that employ your neighbors and make products for your schools. Unqualified and unverified complaints on SaferProducts.gov WILL induce consumers to take our products away from children – pending a recall that may never be forthcoming . . . because nothing’s wrong.

Chairman Tenenbaum has publicly encouraged consumers to rely on the postings in the database – to draw conclusions on the likelihood of future injury. This is quite alarming, given that Ms. Tenenbaum also testified in a Congressional hearing in February that the agency will likely post unverified or inaccurate information to the database. She admits that this information will be faulty. As she said in testimony, “that’s what the rub is”.

Claims of inaccuracies are low in the soft launch. Given the short life of the database in its test phase and the small population of registered users, reports of few data problems must be greeted with skepticism. Less than 1000 companies have registered with the CPSC for the database, an absurdly small percentage of the number of companies whose products will be in the database. Taking into account that many consumer product companies (such as Disney) will need to register numerous brands, product lines and corporate divisions to ensure that the right data flows to the right paper pusher, the current registrations are even paltrier. If companies are not registered, it is unlikely they are even aware of the soft launch, let alone that there may be inaccurate claims against their products being sponsored by the federal government.

Sadly, we are likely to confirm that the CPSC’s faulty processes are damaging companies only AFTER the damage is done. Let’s not forget that the agency is all set to launch a big “public awareness” campaign for the new database – in other words, the federal government will soon be beating the bushes for consumer complaint submissions. As usual, consumer advocates hype uncertain and unquantifiable losses (someone somewhere might not know about something that COULD have been in the database and later be injured) to distract Congress and the media from the certain losses that will befall companies with damaged reputations. Good for plaintiff lawyers but maybe no one else.

Our small company in Illinois has already experienced a materially inaccurate submission – in the very first “complaint” we faced – and were unable to block it from the database. The anonymous posting concerned a consumer’s “feelings” about one of our products based on a photograph she found on the Internet. Unfortunately, she was clearly wrong and we could prove it. The CPSC wasn’t impressed by our valid CPSIA test reports or photographic evidence of the consumer’s error. I can safely assure you that misleading and inaccurate claims will not only be submitted to the database and but will be posted by the CPSC knowing full well that the claims are untrue. I wrote about my experiences in my blog.

I hope you will reconsider your views on the CPSIA database and weigh more carefully the legitimate concerns of businesses serving the children’s marketplace. We are in this business for a reason – we are devoted to making children’s lives BETTER. The new database will not further our mission, nor will a database filled with garbage benefit consumers. We can do better, and we MUST do better.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
Vernon Hills, IL
My blog: http://www.learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com/

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Answer to Slate.com on the CPSIA Database

« Previous Page — Next Page »