CPSIA – Comment Letter on the "15 Month Rule"

August 3, 2010

Todd A. Stevenson
Director, Office of the Secretary
Room 820
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Agency: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

Re: Docket No. CPSC–2010-0038 Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification.

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

I am hereby submitting comments in response to the Solicitation of Comments on Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification (Docket No. CPSC–2010–0038) published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2010 (the “Proposed Rule”).

The End of (Business) Life As We Know It:

As I sit down to record my comments on this rule, I take comfort in knowing that the CPSC admits what it is doing here. In a section entitled “Caveats and Possible Market Reactions to Third Party Testing Requirements”, the agency acknowledges the severe impact of its new rule on manufacturers:

a. Significantly increased costs,
b. Incentive to redesign (presumably successful) products,
c. Incentive to reduce features on products,
d. Incentive to eliminate (presumably useful) components in finished goods,
e. Incentive to reduce product lines,
f. Exit the market altogether,
g. Go out of business,
h. Create barriers to entry for future business expansion, especially in specialty markets (non-mass market),
i. Devastate niche markets (noting particularly the “special needs” educational market – sorry, blind kids!), and
j. Incentive to delay or forgo product or manufacturing process improvements (to avoid testing costs).

Quite a stimulus program! Of course, the CPSC knows we can’t meet this challenge alone. In “The Potential Effects of the Proposed Rule”, the agency advises us to hire a few helpers:

a. Lawyers to review CPSC regulations,
b. Engineers and chemists to develop product specifications, conduct tests and design a program for production testing,
c. Statisticians or consultants to determine the frequency, sample size and collection method for production testing, and
d. Technicians, “perhaps working under the supervision of an engineer, chemist or similar professional”, to perform production tests.

This certainly is a Brave New World for us. Luckily we have the CPSC to tell us what to do. Unfortunately, we can’t afford an in-house legal department or teams of engineers, chemists or statisticians. We don’t even have technicians. Incredibly, somehow we bumble on in our blissful, almost charming ignorance, having had only one recall of 130 pieces (we recovered every unit) out of perhaps 1,000,000,000 units sold in the last 26 years. No doubt all the pain the CPSC is promising us will be worth it . . . gotta keep everyone so safe.

Seriously, Is Anyone Listening?

On page 28338 of the Federal Register, the Proposed Rule reproduces the “reasonable testing program” as it stood before the December 10-11, 2009 workshop at the CPSC. The workshop (which we attended with three people who were each asked to appear as a panelist) was ostensibly for the purpose of giving “stakeholder feedback” on the so-called “15 Month Rule” (the Proposed Rule) and the component testing rule (also up for comment today, posted under separate cover). We gave detailed feedback on these rules – none positive – yet the Proposed Rule seems to have preserved the original, deeply-flawed concepts intact.

It is difficult not to conclude that the process of providing feedback to this CPSC is a sham. While Chairman Tenenbaum has long touted her “policy” of seeking feedback from all stakeholders including industry, judging from this rule, the commitment to seeking feedback does not involve maintaining an open mind. It appears that the most likely feedback to be well-received is feedback that ratifies what the agency already plans to do. Other feedback is “wrong”, I guess. I doubt you will find this letter useful.

As time ebbs on and as the drumbeat of a CPSC bent on our destruction becomes more and more clear, the incentive to waste a few days preparing detailed comments also ebbs. Nevertheless, owing to the importance of this Proposed Rule, I am hereby submitting comments. I have no reason to be optimistic that you will consider my point of view with an open mind. This rule has all the earmarks of a fait accompli.

Deeply Flawed Economic Analysis.

The Proposed Rule devotes pages and pages to a tortured analysis of its purported compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”). This section of the Proposed Rule is a virtual admission of how unworkable the rule is (and the CPSIA testing scheme in general). As a starting point, the rule states: “The objective of the rule is to reduce the risk of injury from consumer products, especially from products intended for children aged 12 years and younger.” In my recent study of CPSC recall data posted on its website, I have found exactly ONE DEATH and THREE ASSERTED INJURIES from lead or lead-in-paint from 1999-2010. Please keep this statistic in mind as I review the economics of your “injury reduction” effort.

The flaws in the RFA analysis are clear in its discussion of testing costs for toys. The analysis acknowledges that it only accounts for out-of-pocket testing costs, nothing else. Significant additional (and ignored) costs include samples destroyed or damaged in testing, transportation of samples, administrative costs for managing testing, administration costs for managing the testing data, administrative costs for managing recordkeeping, an allocation of general management time, legal expenses relating to testing and so on. Depending on the scale of the business, I estimate that these costs (and distractions) will add 15%-50% to the out-of-pocket testing costs.

The RFA analysis concludes that testing a typical toy will cost $1,262 per product. As an average, this might be a good number for our business. I would note, however, that the Proposed Rule posits that we will test multiple samples, sending in perhaps four separate samples per item to satisfy the bizarre “required high degree of assurance” standard. [The rule states clearly that testing one sample is never enough. Interestingly, we have never had the experience in the last 20 years that multiple safety tests of the same product reveals anything useful other than rapidly approaching poverty.] The rule’s four-sample regime takes the testing cost per toy up to $4,848 (by the calculation in the document) plus another $2,500 for mechanical tests (because the rule posits that we will submit FIFTY samples for mechanical tests). That brings us up to $7,348 per item, plus 54 destroyed samples. This implies a rough “all-in” cost of $10,000 per item. We have 1,500 catalog items in our product line. Without a “reasonable testing program” in place (see below), we will have to test each item annually. This is a cost of $15 million for our company EVERY YEAR. [We also sell custom items, a business that would presumably be terminated by this testing rule. That’s several jobs down the drain.]

Does it surprise you to know that $15 million in testing costs exceeds our annual profit? By far?

The RFA analysis is deeply flawed in other ways, too. The rule duly reports that “[a]ccording to a representative of a trade association, there are an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 individual toys on the market.” Oh, really? Perhaps the CPSC shouldn’t have consulted the International Hubcap Manufacturers Association for this information. A quick visit to the Amazon.com website reveals listings of 808,465 toys and games on August 3rd (http://amzn.to/djtTVX). Amazon is a customer of ours – I estimate that they list about one-third of all toys and games sold in the consumer market. Call it 2.5 million toys and games available to consumers in the U.S. But that’s not all – the category also includes specialty items not present on consumer sites. For instance, our industry, the education industry, is largely invisible on consumer sites. I estimate that about one million SKUs are available to purchase at the annual convention of the International Reading Association. Millions of other SKUs are displayed at the national math show, the national science show and the national early childhood show. Add in special needs and other sub-markets – and you get well in excess of 4-5 million toys and games. So the RFA analysis might be off by 100x in its assessment of the toy market ALONE. That’s not close. . . .

The RFA analysis goes on to conclude that the ENTIRE MARKET of products affected by the rule is 100,000–150,000 products. This includes “wearing apparel, accessories, jewelry, juvenile products, children’s furniture, etc.”, plus non-children’s products and other children’s products like ATVs, bikes, bunk beds and so on. It is hard to dignify this ridiculous data with a retort, except to note that it is absurd on its face. The apparel industry ALONE offers as many as 8,000,000 different children’s SKUs for sale. The RFA analysis is fatally flawed.

At $10,000 per SKU, the projected children’s product testing costs will easily exceed $50 billion per year. Remember the 11-year CPSC statistic on lead deaths and injuries – one death and three ASSERTED injuries? [There are no recorded injuries from phthalates or cadmium, by the way.] The 11-year compliance cost will exceed $550 billion (in 2010 dollars), expended by U.S. companies to “reduce” this risk of injury. It would cost a lot less to wrap every American child in bubble wrap.

Small Businesses CANNOT SURVIVE THIS RULE.

Assuming we are supposed to take this rule seriously, the Proposed Rule is perhaps the best friend of the mass market yet invented by an agency seemingly bent on the destruction of the small business community. This letter documents again and again the unrealistic expectations and assumptions made by the authors of this rule with respect to businesses in general and small businesses in particular. Thousands of small businesses of every stripe and color will be affected by this rule. Are you seriously thinking that they will all hire statisticians, chemists and engineers to prepare the reams of data, plans and reports the CPSC expects? Once this massive, herculean effort is completed, who will be safer anyhow? I can think of someone – mass market companies who have been handed a game-ending cost advantage on a silver platter by the CPSC. This, combined with mass market companies’ ability to create certified firewalled in-house labs, favors the big guy dramatically. No wonder the rule states again and again how prejudicial this rule is to small business. The CPSC knows what it’s doing.

Small businesses will strain to even understand what is expected of them. The rule is obtuse, long-winded and full of arcania. Small business people may not have the time or skills to master this complex rule. When the CPSC turns to its attention to enforcement (as promised for 2011) and selects a few small businesses to whip into shape, the market will take note of the pain and a mass exit will result. I realize, however, that Cassandra-like predictions haven’t influenced the CPSC in recent times. One of the Commissioners has even been quoted as saying that “anecdotes aren’t evidence”. It feels like we have to die to prove we were right. A few small businesses might just do that, if the agency waits long enough.

The Commission has asked for feedback on how to address these issues. The complexity of the CPSIA safety rules proves that they are unworkable. To repair this damage, the Commission must ask Congress to restore its ability to assess risk. I am assuming that the Commission would exercise this discretion with more common sense than is embodied in this rule. CPSC rules should be trimmed back to things that MATTER, only. Second, the agency should build its rules and its enforcement activity around DATA. Injury statistics tell the agency what is important. If a particular hazard generates ONE DEATH AND THREE ASSERTED INJURIES OVER 11 YEARS, you can safely relax your rules quite a bit (there are worse problems out there). Education might make a difference, however.

Finally, the Commission should NOT take ANY step if there is EVEN A SHRED OF DOUBT about the impact on small business. Small business is the major jobs creator in America. When you promulgate rules that choke the life out of small business or sharply reduce their incentive to invest, you are killing our economy. You have a heavy responsibility to keep this place running, even if it’s an imperfect world. While it’s sad that a child ever dies, the pain and suffering imposed on countless families from lost jobs, lost capital, lost access to needed products, and so on likely far exceeds it.

Reasonable Testing Program – Busy Work to Keep Us From Running Our Businesses.

The “Reasonable Testing Program” (“RTP”) represents a choice presented to manufacturers of children’s products under this rule. If we endure the expense and disruption of a RTP, we can cut our testing frequency (read, testing costs) in half. A very tempting prospect but the cost of a RTP seems too high, leaving us with a Hobson’s Choice. We can’t afford annual testing and we cannot afford a RTP. What should we do? What will anyone do?

Owing to the burden and complexity of RTPs, I predict EVERY REGULATED COMPANY will violate these rules. Since Ms. Tenenbaum has promised to turn to enforcement in 2011, the CPSC regulators should have a pretty easy time finding juicy targets. Every company will provide wonderful enforcement opportunities.

Although our testing program has been highly-effective over the last 26 years, our program would never meet these standards. We do not maintain the volume of paperwork that the new CPSC rule now requires. We know what we’re doing, but we have not organized our files into a how-to manual. Perhaps the agency thinks every company in the country is an ISO 9001 company. They’re not, and this kind of documentation is rare and breathtakingly expensive to prepare.

Having endured the CPSIA spectacle for two years now, I do not trust the seemingly flexible definition of necessary documentation. The pattern is that these seemingly open-ended terms (which may or may not describe our current recordkeeping) will mature into something rigid down the line. Even if they don’t, we still face the risk that we will not measure up to the expectations of the CPSC enforcement officer at the time of reckoning. The feeling that we are being set up is inescapable. As noted above, given our record of performance, the agency should have NO concerns about how we go about our business. Nonetheless, I feel certain that these rules will bite me in the future.

Sample selection under the rule should not be based on any statistical formula (per the baffling presentation of Dr. Michael Greene at the December 2009 workshop). If the overall safety results of the company are strong, the choice of samples by the company or factories should be presumed compliant without further inquiry. Random selection (taking one off the shelf . . . without the assistance of a statistician) works just fine in our experience, and there is no evidence that testing multiple samples will accomplish anything but will certainly raise costs. Better sampling won’t lower injury rates that already approach zero.

We currently do not use production testing and have zero production testing plans in place. With one recall in 26 years, I would assert this kind of testing is superfluous in our business and basically useless from a safety standpoint. It will significantly raise costs, however. The tedious exercise of preparing a pallet load of production testing plans to meet the new requirements is just plain busy work. One must ask what the CPSC was thinking when it penned this description of a production testing plan: “A production testing plan may include recurring testing or the use of process management techniques such as control charts, statistical process control programs, or failure modes and effects analysis (FMEAs) designed to control potential variations in product manufacturing that could affect the product’s ability to comply with the applicable rules, bans, standards or regulations.” Fancy words but . . . what planet are they from?

The requirement to list all the tests applicable to our items, again and again, to satisfy the RTP requirements is typical of mindless busy work asked of us. Does the CPSC think this will make ANY difference? Most businesses confirm safety tests with their testing lab partners anyhow. More bureaucracy, taken to new heights.

We don’t have any remedial plans in place either. We are quite familiar with how to appropriately resolve compliance and quality issues, and have never had a problem with regulators in the exercise of our business judgment. The requirement to prepare a detailed written plan, just in case we have another recall in the next 26 years, is pure officiousness. This is yet another waste of our time, our money, our resources and our intellect.

The recordkeeping requirements of a RTP is well beyond our ability or interest to preserve for 1500 products produced in thousands of lots over the course of a year. Taking a “Dear Diary” approach to how we source, test, move, remediate, repair, investigate and otherwise manage children’s products is completely unreasonable. This is especially ridiculous given our track record.

The Commission has asked what a RTP might cost us. I have a hard time estimating it because all the fun in our business would be gone. If we had to endure the bureaucratic nightmare this rule envisions, if anyone actually expects us to do all this to make simple plastic toys for schools, I would have to seriously consider our alternatives. So it might cost us our entire company. That’s the whole enchilada, guys.

Remember, we don’t have to make children’s products, nor do we have to stick around for the next act of this tragedy. If the CPSC persists in ruining what was once a rather safe industry with a strong track record, the cost will be the entire market for children’s products.

Is that a high enough price to give you pause? I know, I know, more anecdotes . . . .

The Requirement to Document Procedures against Undue Influence is Unreasonable.

The “Undue Influence Procedures” requirement (“UIP”) is essentially a requirement to document efforts to avoid fraud. If you’re not inclined to commit fraud, there’s little reason to set out your plan to not commit fraud. Here’s our current policy – “Don’t break the law or commit fraud”. This has worked well for us, as we have never exerted undue influence in the last 26 years and have no plans to start now.

I am really sorry that there are bad people in the world, some small number of which may have at one time attempted to exert undue influence over one or more test labs. Perhaps the CPSC should concern themselves with the bad guys and leave the rest of us alone.

Material Change Rules Place Too Much Risk on Manufacturers.

The CPSC’s rule on when to test after a “material change” is sufficiently open-ended to render the judgment on when to test fairly obvious – ALWAYS TEST. Deep within the Proposed Rule, Section 1107.10(b)(2)(ii) instructs “A material change is any change in the product’s design, manufacturing process, or sourcing of component parts that a manufacturer exercising due care knows, or should know, could affect the product’s ability to comply with the rules . . . .” “Due care” is defined as “the degree of care that a prudent and competent person engaged in the same line of business or endeavor would exercise under similar circumstances.”

In other words, the agency’s 20-20 hindsight can construct a case for testing for a material change for just about anything that “might” or “could” affect results or that a hypothetical “prudent person” might think of investigating. Of course, this issue only comes up in the context of an injury or a recall, so what are the odds that any judgment to NOT test would withstand inquiry by an angry CPSC? Zilch. So either you always test or you take a big risk. This is completely unfair and unreasonable.

Testing Frequency Must Be Left to the Manufacturer and to the Market.

A rule requiring manufacturers to test according to these standards every year is going to kill us and many other businesses. No one can afford the testing scheme outlined above, we least of all. If we must test according to these standards, we will be out of business quickly. It is equally unrealistic to imagine that testing cost savings from maintaining a RTP will hold much appeal since that project is so wasteful and gargantuan. Of course, a firewalled in-house lab would be nice for all of us small businesses, but that’s unrealistic, too (not to mention undesirable). We have no realistic way to moderate these costs. Please see my other August 3 comment letter for an explanation of why I believe component and composite testing will likewise provide no relief.

Testing is supposed to assure product quality and compliance. If we have a good, long term record of safety, why can’t we just carry on as we have, and deal with issues as they arise? That worked for 26 years. The new way is just unaffordable.

The “High Degree of Assurance” Standard is Unreasonable and Not Derived from the CPSIA.

The rule seems to conclude that a “high degree of assurance” is a necessary element of any “reasonable testing program”. The importance of the “reasonable testing program” which was incorporated into the CPSIA as an alternative to third party testing for non-children’s products, has been imputed to the children’s product area as a way to reduce testing frequency, and with it, the “high degree of assurance” standard (“HDA”) was likewise imputed. Thus, sliding down this slippery slope, the HDA standard has become part and parcel of the “15 Month Rule”. Abracadabra.

The Commission has requested feedback on the meaning of the definition of HDA in Section 1107.2. Happily, the agency has rejected a strict statistical interpretation requiring “95% probability” of compliance. What should the definition be interpreted to mean? The “high degree of assurance” should be based on an overall assessment of the safety record of the company. It should NOT be based on the results of an individual product, even if recalled or deemed dangerous. In our case, we have done business for 26 years, had one recall of 130 pieces of out of about 1,000,000,000 pieces sold. All of these units were recovered. Thus, we believe there is zero probability that a recalled product is in the market. Our historical recall rate is approximately 130/1,000,000,000 or 0.00001% over a 26-year period.

With this record over so many years, our company should be deemed to have satisfied this HDA requirement and be endorsed as having a reasonable testing program without further inquiry. And if we DON’T deserve the HDA designation, then the CPSC should articulate what level of safety achievement would earn the designation.

Notably, the entire children’s product industry also meets this requirement. Of the 899 recalls of children’s products from 1999-2010, only one death and three asserted injuries from lead were recorded by the CPSC. Thus, the probability of being injured from lead by a children’s product is nearly zero, given that literally billions of children’s products are sold every year. [The apparel and footwear industry claims annual sales of about 4 billion units ALONE.] Industry recall rates are likewise well under 1% per annum. With injury statistics and recall rates in hand, the CPSC should GREATLY loosen the strictures of the “high degree of assurance” standard to focus its resources on activities that might actually injure someone.

One-to-One Product Testing Will Punish the Smallest Companies.

The prophylactic approach to testing adopted by the CPSC will inevitably put many small or micro businesses into bankruptcy, or drive them into unregulated markets to avoid the CPSIA’s wasteful bureaucratic costs. If the law does not permit the agency to adopt sensible rules that allow businesses to manage their compliance risk as best they can (where the standards remain in place, but the government stops trying to tell businesses HOW to comply), then the Commission must finally tell Mr. Waxman what he doesn’t want to hear – that his law is broken and can’t be fixed. [Notably, these mini businesses most at risk have an exemplary record of safety and very low recall rates. NOTHING is gained by rules that crush the little guy.]

We in the small business community have suffered for two solid years while regulators have sought any possible way to avoid delivering this “unpleasant” message. I get the impression that the demise of our businesses would not be too great a cost for the agency to incur to avoid telling Congress what it doesn’t want to hear. If the Commission is genuinely interested in a fix, it must take action with Congress. I do not believe the agency can devise sensible regulations to fix this problem short of a legislative change.

Ban on Retesting Will Unnecessarily Create Crises at Small Businesses.

In our experience, test labs are neither infallible nor definitive in their understanding of U.S. safety laws and regulations. It is not unusual to experience failed test reports for reasons besides safety problems. In addition, children’s products are not so pure and perfect in their composition that every test produces the same result. The CPSC itself instructed manufacturers to audit their test labs in the ironically-dated April 1, 2010 version of the Proposed Rule in response to industry complaints that test results varied from test lab to test lab. By forbidding retesting, the Proposed Rule removes discretion and appropriate problem resolution techniques from a commonplace quality event. You don’t need to manage a very large portfolio of products before the probability of an ordinary course testing problem rises exponentially. This is a matter of mathematics. If retesting is banned, the CPSC is legislating a crisis of the week.

Again, CPSC injury data informs us that the nature of the problem is extremely modest. Historical injury rates are VERY low. This retesting rule is completely unnecessary and penal to all companies except perhaps mass market companies with greater resources. Small businesses won’t have teams of engineers or statisticians around to save the day. Many small businesses will naively call the CPSC for “help”, only to find out that they have created a worse crisis. Some small businesses may miss this point in the Proposed Rule and continue to retest, only to be punished later when the CPSC finds evidence of retesting at the time of a recall. Is this really how you want to regulate?

I would note that the justification for all this is bad acts: “[Retesting] may tempt unscrupulous parties to attempt to ‘test the product into compliance’. . . .” To my knowledge, this behavior has little precedence and even so, it is an abuse that can be dealt with other ways. If honorable and law-abiding companies use retesting to resolve honest problems, no harm is being done. Punishing good guys because you are afraid that otherwise bad guys might benefit is excessive and inappropriately harsh.

The 10,000 Piece Limit for One-Time Testing is Arbitrary and Unfair.

The CPSC has failed to persuade that the 10,000 limit is an appropriate break point for testing. First of all, the limit is cumulative, not related to sales in a period or per annum. Second, the threshold bears no relationship to risk of injury. In other words, it’s completely arbitrary. Why 10,000? Why not? In my view, that’s not enough to justify this rule. Many of the micro businesses that might benefit from this rule have NEVER had a recall. These are the people this rule will restrict. And the logic of this is . . . what, exactly?

Even more remarkable is the rule’s insistence that these low volume items be tested annually after passing the 10,000 piece threshold. Small companies will never have a RTP so annual testing (or more frequently, if for instance the item is hand-assembled) will be mandated. Consider a product selling 2,000 piece per year. Under these rules, the incentive to drop it once it crosses the 10,000 threshold will be powerful. This reminds me of the incentive on small businesses to not hire a 26th employee to avoid an onslaught of Obamacare obligations. A tacit cap on sales will be imposed by this rule. Nice!

The solution to this problem is to require one-time testing before sale, and thereafter according to the business judgment of the manufacturer. Remember, the retailers that buy from the manufacturer will also have something to say about testing frequency, too. Not all solutions are better if imposed by the government.

Alternative Testing Technologies.

The ability to test at low cost with XRF is attractive. For our business, it is tempting to use an XRF gun but for two reasons: (a) cost, and (b) health risk. XRF guns cost $30,000 each and have high annual maintenance costs (several thousand dollars a year). We might need several guns to manage our inventory volumes, a very costly prospect. XRF guns are portable x-ray machines. Notwithstanding the assurance of XRF gun manufacturers, I am quite reluctant to place an x-ray machine in the hands of a warehouse worker in our facility. This is an invitation to disaster. We likewise have no interest in hiring a highly-paid technician to wield the gun, or technicians to wield the guns. In any event, we cannot expose our employees to a possible risk of x-ray genetic damage. I am surprised that the CPSC doesn’t take this risk more seriously. Is lead a worse problem than x-rays?

In any event, I fail to understand what would be accomplished by a XRF solution for small businesses. The process of XRF testing may be inexpensive, but would be disruptive. In any event, I don’t see a connection to safety so I prefer a solution that restores sanity to our safety practices. Burning in a wasteful and disruptive process will only bog down our economy and our competitiveness. Until the CPSC can point to a risk factor relating to the little guys, one cannot rationally conclude that XRF makes this regulation better, just somewhat less worse.

In sum, the Proposed Rule is a dangerous rule with the acknowledged prospect of doing severe market damage. The CPSC knows this, having admitted it in writing in the text of the rule. There is no excuse to push forward with a defective rule on this scale. The Commission must talk honestly with Congress . . . before it’s too late.

Thank you for considering my views on this important subject.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
380 North Fairway Drive
Vernon Hills, IL 60061

Read more here:
CPSIA – Comment Letter on the "15 Month Rule"

CPSIA – McDonald’s Fallout Continues

The spectacle of the McDonald’s cadmium “scare” continued to unfold today.

Let’s not forget that this recall was “urged” by the CPSC although the CPSC admits in writing that the glasses are “non-toxic”. In other words, the glasses are safe. As the manufacturer notes: “‘It could have been any glass company,’ said Ron Biagi, an executive with Arc International, which made the glasses. ‘We all do the same thing using materials from the same suppliers.’” McDonald’s clearly had no choice in the matter, suffering a terrible loss of prestige no matter what the outcome. So the CPSC, Rep. Jackie Speier, one anonymous tipster and a hyperbolic press forced a highly wasteful and destructive recall.

The tumult, chaos and confusion thoughtlessly spawned by the CPSC continues to unfurl in almost predictable fashion: “But the returns [to McDonald's] are just the beginning of the next chapter in the cadmium debate, with the CPSC poised to set new limits on the metal even as it downplays the McDonald’s recall and environmental advocates aim to use the episode to build momentum for reform of federal toxics law.”

A terrible move deserves an even worse follow-up.

What’s the cause for alarm here? The glasses are safe, so says the CPSC . . . as it dramatically lowers the standard for cadmium. Yeah, nobody’s worried.

The consumer group talking heads can’t resist chiming in: “Don Mays, senior director of product safety for Consumer Reports, said cadmium was being used in some manufactured goods to replace lead, which has been eliminated from many products in response to heavy regulation and widespread health concerns. Many of those goods were once commonly associated with lead, like paint and inexpensive jewelry. ‘We’re just starting to see this,’ Mr. Mays said. ‘It’s starting to creep into a lot of consumer products that never had it before.’”

Does anyone care that the CPSC SAYS THIS ISN’T TRUE? “After an Associated Press investigation first uncovered the high cadmium levels in some children’s jewelry, CPSC Chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum publicly warned manufacturers in Hong Kong not to replace lead with cadmium or other toxic metals. Tenenbaum told senators in April that ‘we really don’t think’ companies are deliberately swapping out lead for other hazardous chemicals, ‘but we think they’re being careless and not realizing that you cannot use these metals in children’s products.’” [Emphasis added]

Some in the press aren’t persuaded. After all, urban myths are true . . . aren’t they? “[David Lazarus of the LA Times] notes that Cadmium has probably stayed off the radar for so long because people weren’t widely aware of its use. The focus has primarily been on the danger of lead products, and lead product replacements weren’t a primary concern. Chinese manufacturers began using Cadmium insted [sic] of lead to get the same vivid pigments in product colors.” Right. David Lazarus knows all about this.

And then there are our Democratic leaders in Congress. It’s election season so there’s little incentive to be a calming influence. “Congresswoman Jackie Spear [sic], who first received the anonymous tip about the Shrek cups, doubts Europe is the Cadmium culprit due to its strict manufacturing rules. Spear [sic] suspects either a subcontractor or ingredient provider in China; China is one of the leading Cadmium producers in the world. . . . Spear [sic] says she has legislation in the works that would expand the Cadmium ban in U.S., specifying removing its use in any product for children.”

And the basis for Rep. Speier’s hunch is . . . what, exactly? The glasses were made in a U.S. factory: “In contrast to the Chinese-made children’s jewelry recalled earlier in the year, the drinking glasses were manufactured in the United States, by the Millville, N.J.-based company ARC International. Ron Biagi, vice president for North American sales at ARC, said he was surprised by the recall and vouched for the safety of the glasses. While environmental and consumer groups pointed to the importance of identifying the producer of the cadmium-tainted enamel used on the McDonald’s glasses, Biagi declined to name ARC’s supplier. ‘It’s not fair for me to pull them in,’ he said.” OMG, somebody decent is left in the world! I had about given up hope.

Having set off the blaze, CPSC Director of Public Affairs Scott Wolfson again spewed more of his patented mixed signals sure to sow seeds of doubt: “‘What’s so important is for parents to understand the difference. … Children are not at an acute risk; the glasses are not toxic,’ Wolfson said, adding that ‘there are no signs we’re looking at a wave here of cadmium becoming the next lead.’” Which is why, Scott, you and your agency acted so promptly to push for a recall of this non-toxic product made of common materials in wide distribution in this country for years without any detectable adverse health effect? Which is why you told America to stop using the oh-so-safe glasses “immediately” in your OnSafety blog? Do I have this wrong? Clear as mud. Very believable, too.

There are terms for this that are too crass for a family publication like my blog. Let your imagination run. How will all this resolve itself? Of course, not very well. Justified by fear of “bone softening” (that sounds HORRIBLE, doesn’t it?) and other bizarre maladies that supposedly COULD befall us from unspecified exposure to cadmium, we will get many new and ineffective regulations imposing yet more devastating costs and devastating risk on the children’s product industry.

While hatred of government is a necessary by-product of the massive self-inflicted injury of the CPSIA, we will more pertinently be faced with the difficult challenge of protecting our life’s work – our businesses. The livelihoods of our friends and associates at our company, the economic well-being of our customers and suppliers (often our close friends, too) and in our case, the economic future prospects of the kids who are being educated with our products, all hang in the balance. I don’t know what stops this freight train before it tragically collides with reality. Certainly not leadership or a show of character from our government.

I hate to close these essays sounding like a Tea Bagger (not that I resent the label). I don’t wish to be marginalized for having strong views about an abdication of leadership and judgment by our government leaders. Say what you will, the McDonald’s fiasco was fomented by politicians with agendas. Many companies and people – and our economy – will be severely damaged as a result.

There’s nothing to be proud of here.

Read more here:
CPSIA – McDonald’s Fallout Continues

CPSIA – Lowest Common Denominator Government

We saw a display of Mr. Obama’s team in action this past week as McDonald’s was cornered into a national recall of a safe product. How did it happen? Did our government rise to the occasion, or simply resume its descent into the abyss?

“Americans want to be safe. And they expect their federal government to protect them. So that is what I’m here to do.” Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, NPR Report “Under Obama, Agencies Step Up Rule-Making”

Last week in a coordinated media extravaganza, an anonymous caller alerted Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) to the trace presence of cadmium in Shrek glasses being sold by McDonald’s. In a rapid fire series of events, McDonald’s announced a voluntary recall of the offending Made-in-America glasses “at the urging of the [CPSC] commission ”. The CPSC apparently pushed for the recall of the glasses by McDonald’s after quickly testing the glasses.

[It turns out that there were two "anonymous tipsters", one of whom is Jennifer Taggart, a regular reader of this blog. Ms. Taggart has acknowledged that cadmium levels on the McDonald's glasses are well within California's Proposition 65 restrictions. Prop. 65 is easily the most restrictive and challenging of the myriad local safety regulations.]

Rep. Speier seized the election year opportunity to lecture McDonald’s on safety: “’Our children’s health should not depend on the consciences of anonymous sources. Although McDonald’s did the right thing by recalling these products, we need stronger testing standards to ensure that all children’s products are proven safe before they hit the shelves,’ said Speier. ‘Cadmium is a toxic substance that is extremely dangerous to the developmental health of children. . . . Thanks to this anonymous tip received by my office, the proper agencies were alerted, necessary action was taken by McDonald’s, and the long-term health of millions of children is no longer at risk.’”

Jackie Speier is a Democrat representing the San Francisco area.

A media deluge followed the recall. Typical of the hyperbole is this article from NJ.com: “McDonald’s announced the voluntary recall after small amounts of cadmium were found in the enamel with which character images were painted on the glasses . . . . Long-term exposure to low levels of cadmium from those glasses can cause various health problems, including cancer, bone softening and severe kidney problems. [NJ State Assemblyman Paul] Moriarty, in a news release, demanded an investigation . . . . ‘It’s stunning that in this day and age our children can still come into contact with toxic materials just by using a glass featuring a cartoon character,’ Moriarty said in the release. . . . ” [Emphasis added] AP could not resist the McDonald’s cadmium frenzy that it helped to create: “A recall of 12 million cadmium-tainted ”Shrek” drinking glasses sold by McDonald’s raises questions about the safety of millions of similar cheap promotional products that have been sitting in Americans’ kitchen cabinets for years.”

It all boils down to trust, right? After all, it’s McDonald’s. McDonald’s is America, McDonald’s is children. If you can’t trust McDonald’s, who can you trust?

I will attempt to answer that question.

First – Can you trust McDonald’s?

Yes, absolutely, without reservation. McDonald’s (not a customer of ours, never was) has the best reputation of any company in the toy industry (in my humble opinion) for safety, conscientiousness and attention to detail. McDonald’s is HARDLY asleep at the wheel. Rep. Speier’s remarks are outrageous but for the fact that she is a California Democrat from San Francisco. Consider the source. I believe McDonald’s ten times out of ten against Rep. Speier.

On the other hand, if McDonald’s is so wonderful, why on Earth did they recall these glasses? Okay, you be the CEO of McDonald’s for a moment – what would you do? Fight for the right to sell cadmium-laced glasses? Argue that the glasses are “safe”, that toxic cadmium isn’t harmful? Please, McDonald’s had no choice because it has to protect its brand. Listen to the Moms in the video above. If they don’t trust McDonald’s, they will walk across the street to Wendy’s. McDonald’s has NO CHOICE but to “do the right thing”. The cost of the recall is a secondary concern. Burn, baby, burn.

Second – Can you trust an anonymous tipster?

Why be anonymous if you are acting “heroically”? Well, for one thing, being anonymous means you aren’t accountable if you are wrong. The two tipsters were using XRF guns, acknowledged by the CPSC to be imperfect and best used to screen for possible faults. It might be embarrassing – or expensive – to start a public panic and then be proven wrong. This mess might be seen as your fault and somebody might want you to pay for the expenses. Hmmm.

What if the caller had reason to hide his/her identity? This is the very worrisome scenario. There are many people who might want to rat out a McDonald’s. How about a competitor? Or a spurned supplier? A disgruntled employee or spouse of an employee? This is one of the primary objections I made to the public database – the potential for abuse is rampant. An anonymous tipster very well might be up to no good. McDonald’s loss could be the tipster’s gain – an ill-intentioned tipster in partnership with a self-promoting fear monger in election season (like Jackie Speier) could be a powder keg. [Ed. Note: It is worth noting for clarity's sake that Jennifer Taggart has identified herself so this discussion does not apply to her.]

This could happen to you, too. The CPSIA encourages this kind of rat-me-out frenzy. How many businesses will close or sell out because of this shameful law? Time will tell. In the meantime, the sport of trashing trademarks and company reputations will thrive at the hands of the “anonymous tipsters”.

Third – Can you trust the CPSC?

We ought to be able to trust them. Have they earned this trust?

Here’s a June 4th tweet from Scott Wolfson, Director of Public Affairs: “Scott_Wolfson: Note to reporters: the recalled McDonald’s glasses are not toxic.” Interesting – the CPSC apparently pushed for the recall of safe products. Wolfson is also responsible for the press release detailing this recall: “The designs on the glasses contain cadmium. Long term exposure to cadmium can cause adverse health effects.” Same guy. And Wolfson offered these calming words of reassurance to the AP: “Wolfson said the recalled glasses have ‘far less cadmium’ than the [recently] recalled jewelry. He would not say how much cadmium leached from the glasses in tests, only that it was ‘slightly above the protective level currently being developed by the agency.’”

I believe Mr. Wolfson is the author of the CPSC’s OnSafety blog – here’s how he counseled consumers about the McDonald’s glasses in a recent post: “If you bought these “Shrek Forever After 3D” glasses at McDonald’s – millions of you did – stop using them immediately. . . . The glasses contain low-levels of cadmium. . . . The company has stepped up to do the right thing [in issuing a recall].” [Emphasis added] He also justified the recall of non-toxic glasses in the New York Times as follows: “Both C.P.S.C. and McDonald’s are being highly protective of children in announcing this recall.”

Scott has a way with words, doesn’t he? Makes you wonder what his job is, exactly.

So the CPSC admits that the glasses were safe. Yet the “commission” urged McDonald’s to recall the glasses. Why? Wolfson says implausibly that the CPSC was being “highly protective” in recalling non-toxic glasses. Actually, “Why” may not even be the right question.

Let’s consider the question of “how”. On what legal basis did the CPSC press McDonald’s to take this step? The authority of the agency to demand a recall depends on the presence of a “substantial product hazard”. There is no other basis for the agency to take action – it cannot act on whims or because it is always crabby on Mondays. I have addressed this issue previously in this space, and noted that the authority to initiate a recall is based on the existence of “a product defect which (because of the pattern of defect, the number of defective products distributed in commerce, the severity of the risk, or otherwise) creates a substantial risk of injury to the public.”

If the CPSC’s Director of Public Affairs notifies the press that the product is not toxic, it is incontestably certain that the glasses don’t present a substantial product hazard in this case. For perspective, consider the views of the U.S. factory responsible for the glasses:

“[VP Ron] Biagi . . . added that [in addition to McDonald's] Durand Glass also does material safety tests. ‘We will do nothing (different) because we don’t need to,’ Biagi added. ‘You are always looking for the most healthful way to make a product. What we’re producing today, it is safe.’ Biagi said there are multiple suppliers, domestic and foreign, of the enamel used for the Shrek glasses. Other glass producers use the same product, he said. Late Friday, the company issued a short statement from its CEO for North American operations, Fred Dohn. ‘All the products, whether decorated or undecorated, that Arc International is delivering on the markets meet the highest standards of quality and safety,’ Dohn stated. ‘Arc International is a professional manufacturer that stands behind all its products. We therefore see this as an internal decision by McDonald’s and will be investigating the matter once we receive more information.’”

So what gives? By all appearances, the leadership of the agency substantially exceeded its legal authority in pressuring McDonald’s to recall these glasses. Any problem with that?

I won’t insult your intelligence with a rant about the trustworthiness of the Democrats who are running the shop these days. If you trust Jackie Speier and the like after this sorry tale, I can’t help you.

In closing, let’s recall the words of Ms. Tenenbaum: “Americans want to be safe. And they expect their federal government to protect them. So that is what I’m here to do.” By all appearances, Ms. Tenenbaum was doing exactly what she promised – her agency is wrapping you in bubble wrap whether you need it or not. She says that’s how you want it – no matter that it’s outside her legal authority, well-beyond any notion of common sense and implemented with a complete disregard to economic consequences or the impact on other market participants. It’s okay because the press eats it up . . . and it helps reelect members of Congress. Everybody’s a winner as we sink into the abyss.

Lowest Common Denominator Government. Yes We Can.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Lowest Common Denominator Government

CPSIA – But Who Will Test the Test Lab Testing Testers???

Demonstrating that creative, innovative flair we look for in our regulatory agencies, the CPSC has just announced its discovery of a much-needed new testing protocol, the test lab testing tester. Okay, so you say someone’s been playing with their clacker balls a bit too much, but heck, they gotta know what they’re doing, right?

Embedded deep in the impressively long 160-pager entitled “Proposed Rule: Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification, April 1, 2010“, the CPSC reveals that there’s trouble in La-La-Land over variances between lab tests performed at different certified labs: “Another comment noted that variations in sample preparation by conformity assessment bodies can and do lead to differing test results. One comment, noting lab-to-lab variations in test results for the same product, suggested that CPSC should require CPSC-recognized third party conformity assessment bodies to conduct blind correlation studies and lab audits.”

Oy vey, what do people EXPECT? The CPSC can’t help out on every niggling problem: “The Commission’s limited resources preclude CPSC from directly conducting verification of the numerous CPSC recognized conformity assessment bodies. Additionally, the activities and requirements for accrediting conformity assessment bodies are outside the scope of this rulemaking.”

Case closed?

Au contraire, Pierre! This CPSC will face down every challenge! They ain’t no teething tiger any more, they are a Lion of Safety now, so they came up with the perfect rule to resolve this dilemma. After all, lest we forget, you CAN’T be too safe! Here’s what they came up with:

“Proposed § 1107.24(a) would state that a manufacturer is responsible for verifying that its children’s products, as tested by a third party conformity assessment body, comply with applicable children’s product safety rules. For purposes of proposed § 1107.24, “verification” would mean testing that demonstrates that the test results from one third party conformity assessment body are consistent with the test results from another third party conformity assessment body for a particular children’s product. Proposed § 1107.24(a) would require a manufacturer to send samples of a previously certified children’s product or a children’s product that previously has been tested periodically pursuant to proposed § 1107.21 to a third party conformity assessment body for verification.

. . . . Proposed § 1107.24(b) would require verification to occur on a reoccurring basis and be conducted at a frequent enough interval to provide a high degree of assurance that the children’s product that had been certified previously continues to comply with the applicable children’s product safety rules or that the periodic test for the children’s product was performed correctly.”

]Emphasis most enthusiastically added.]

This is GENIUS! Thank heavens we have the CPSC to protect us. Who else would have spotted this terrible and threatening gap in our consumer safety network? But having added this new layer of “protection”, aren’t other safety holes now visible? I call on the CPSC to bring out rules clarifying:

• Certification of testing testers;
• Certification of testing tester testing testers (you need those, too);
• Certification of testing tester testing certifiers;
• Rules for tolerable variances among testing labs for each certified test, record keeping on all test results and variances for at least 100 years, and plans of remediation for every conceivable variance for each possible test under all conceivable circumstances;
• Rules for a new agency to check all the work of the CPSC and to reconsider and rewrite every rule they have ever written, plus record keeping and hearings and comment periods for this new agency;

I think the new agency to check the work of the CPSC should be called the Consumer Product Safety Commission Checking Commission for Safety Enhancement and Verification Processes (CPSCCCSEVP), you know, for simplicity. Gotta keep it simple and efficient. That’s my motto!

[For more pleasure reading on this important topic, don't miss the 110-page Staff briefing or the equally riveting 29-page Slide Presentation for the April 15 Commission meeting on the same topic. Happy reading!]

Read more here:
CPSIA – But Who Will Test the Test Lab Testing Testers???

CPSIA – Game Playing with Phthalates

Last Wednesday during ICPHSO, CPSC General Counsel Cheri Falvey made a direct statement about phthalates testing: You only need to test plasticized parts and paints for phthalates. She also noted that internal components still need to be tested, ridiculous (and expensive) as that may be.

In my post of February 17, I admitted that I hadn’t seen this in writing previously and asked for citations. A reader who knows more than me sent me this link. We think she is refering to this language:

“Not all plastics, however, contain phthalates. Certain plastics, such as polyethylene and polypropylene, generally do not require plasticizers. However, surface coatings and adhesives may contain phthalates. In addition, phthalates could be used in some plastics even though they are not required. Phthalates might also be used in some elastomers or synthetic rubbers. . . .

Manufacturers either know or should know what materials and components go into the products they make, and if the product or its components contain one of the plasticizers specified in section 108 of the CPSIA, the manufacturer or importer certifying the product must test the component or product to ensure that it complies with the CPSIA. Failure to comply with section 108 of the CPSIA is a prohibited act under section 19 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) and can result in civil and criminal penalties. Likewise, failure to have a product subject to section 108 of the CPSIA tested by an accredited third-party laboratory and have the appropriate certification for that product is also a prohibited act under section 19 (CPSA).” [Emphasis added]

Aha, that’s it! Or is it? Here’s some more from this document:

“Examples of materials that do not normally contain phthalates and, therefore, might not require testing or certification are:
• Unfinished metal.
• Natural wood, except for coatings and adhesives added to wood. . .
• Mineral products such as play sand, glass, and crystal.”

I wrote about this provision in my comment letter on the second proposed phthalates standard (see paragraph 7). All the risk is on the manufacturer, there are no safe harbors other than comprehensive testing (even for wood, metals, sand and crystals), and there is no way to assure a dealer of the validity of an “incomplete” test report.. This rule remains an utterly unworkable and confusing standard – nowhere near as simple as Ms. Falvey implies. Although few wars are raging with test labs over this provision (since testing isn’t mandatory yet, “anything” goes), the possibility or probability of chaos remains profound.

I feel strongly that it is wrong of CPSC General Counsel Falvey to make light of this risky situation with an unsupported blanket statement, particularly since she is prone to “tisk tisk” you if you ignore one of her many oral warnings. If her words have the power of law, which they certainly don’t, then presumably they also provide cover. Are you ready to make that bet? In this case, if anyone relies on her statement, they are risking civil penalties or criminal charges according to Falvey’s own written policy.

Oops- that’ll teach you to listen to the General Counsel!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Game Playing with Phthalates

CPSIA – ICPHSO Update (Remarks of Cheri Falvey, General Counsel)

The annual ICPHSO conference in Washington, D.C. takes place this week, and today is “CPSC Day”. The first speaker was Cheri Falvey, the General Counsel of the CPSC.

She recommends that we “get over” the testing requirements and start to focus on the public database. Hmmm.

Other salient points:

• Stay on testing and certification doesn’t mean you can stop testing. This is a simple point – you need to comply with the standards, and if you don’t test, you won’t know. No shock here, and presumably, not an issue for responsible companies.
• No certification will be required on tracking labels. This is “definitive”.
• Component testing WILL be allowed but final rule is not available. Interim guidance permits it.
• Lead exclusions relieve you from testing. Good news for all you ruthenium users!
• Phthalate testing is ONLY required for “plasticized component parts” and paints. This is news to me – do any of you know where this is written? In any event, this is literally what Falvey said, so tell your testing labs. Please note that this means you DON’T have to test the entire product.
• The CPSC staff is still working on inaccessible components for phthalate tests. That said, you STILL need to test inaccessible parts for phthalates until they figure out how to give you a pass.
• The CPSC has “gotten incredibly positive feedback” on the new public database. This means your silence is being taken as your tacit approval. Happy?
• 48 Federal Register notices have been published by the CPSC since the awful CPSIA was passed. Bureaucrats everywhere take note: that’s some serious paper pushed.
• Mandatory recalls require disclosure of factory identity. Whether this applies to voluntary recalls has not been determined.
• Several rules to come out in the next four weeks: Civil penalties, meaning of “Children’s Products” under CPSIA and the meaning of “Toy” and “Child Care Articles” under the CPSIA. The big issue for “Children’s Product” is how to deal with the “intent” aspect of the rule, and she is focusing on the “primary” intention of the “manufacturer”. The definition of “Toy” may diverge from the ASTM F963 definition. She seems to be hinting that the definition of “Toy” may be BROADENED (“things made for children”).
• They will also bring out rules on “public accommodation” under the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Acts, as well as process and procedures for the awful Public Database.
• The Public Database will “increase the pressure” on the agency to “run down everything”. So the Public Database is projected to be used to create a more rigid and unforgiving system, a tacit strict liability safety regime. Happy? Think of the first Tuesday in November.
• CPSC is discussing cadmium with State AGs and is studying the current voluntary standard for cadmium or other heavy metals in the surface coatings of toys. They are looking at whether to drive the standard into the substrate. Book it, Danno!
• Chemical regulation is coming. BPA is an example of the beginnings of this effort. They are looking at whether the rules on cadmium and other metals as a maximum soluble migrated element test (EN71) total content test (a la lead-in-substrate). The agency wants feedback on this.
• Dialogue with State AGs are ongoing and joint efforts are being considered. Not sure if this is good or bad, but it has the potential to reduce the risk of wild cards. That said, the State AGs are often wacky on safety and so there is a lowest common denominator risk here.

I have omitted Falvey’s comments on cribs, drywall and other issues tangential to the issues discussed in this space over the last year.

Falvey didn’t mention anything about the impact of these many new rules on the marketplace. That seems to not be her concern. I certainly hope this doesn’t mean she is oblivious to the issue. I know our CFO and sales reps aren’t. She did articulate a system to put an end to small businesses however, when she urged us to think about tracking labels on everything, integrating certifications, testing, labels. No mention of what this would achieve or why it would be worth the expense (the top priority for devotion of our limited capital) or how small businesses could start up in this environment. Love them Democrats! Think of this as their latest jobs program.

One thing she was seemingly obsessed with is Twitter. She brought up the possibility that we were tweeting perhaps ten times. Does this mean she knows we’re going to tell you what she said, or that she resents it? Not clear. It may have been funny the first time she did it (may . . . have . . . been) but it wasn’t funny as she repeated herself. Intimidating free speech is unbecoming for a General Counsel.

The negatives in her presentation seems to confirm the increasingly political nature of the CPSC where safety is a secondary concern to political winds. Is phthalates such a danger that it needs to be driven out of all children’s products? The provision made its way into the law because of the work of Diane Feinstein, not a well-known scientist. Now this Californiazation effort has taken on a life of its own. Get used to creep in these rules. That’s the conclusion I reach from listening to Falvey.

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update (Remarks of Cheri Falvey, General Counsel)

CPSIA – Commission Report to Congress on CPSIA Changes

The CPSC Commission issued its January 15 Congressional report on recommended changes to the CPSIA last Friday. As promised by Inez Tenenbaum, the Commissioners were afforded the opportunity to present individual statements to accompany the Commission report. Four of the Commissioners (Tenenbaum, Adler, Nord and Northup) chose to present their own statements. Adler also promised a supplemental statement on the subject of lead, which has not been released yet to my knowledge.

The Report and the accompanying statements make interesting reading. I do not propose to summarize the documents here, but have set out a few thoughts:

a. The Commission’s Consensus is Important. The Commissioners made a big effort to speak with one voice in the report. While they certainly did not agree on everything, their effort to achieve bipartisanship agreement in the report sends a good message. The Commission needs to work harder to find this middle ground more consistently and less fractiously. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for turning safety into a game of political football. If the Commission can work better together, confidence in their administration will grow and extremes will be avoided.

The prohibition against full Commission meetings in private (the Sunshine Act) is a hidden factor in the report. Since the Commission ill-advisedly voted down a public discussion of the report, the Commissioners were prevented from meeting in groups of three, four or five. When you read this report, imagine how it might have read if the five Commissioners were allowed to sit in a room and duke it out. It might have been a better document, more complete and more prescriptive.

b. Where’s the Functional Purpose Exception??? The report is as interesting for what it DOESN’T say as for what it does say. Most importantly, the functional purpose exemption is GONE. Rumorville has it that the functional purpose exception became more and more ornate and complex as the Commissioners struggled to write a recommendation until even its most ardent supporters had to concede that it wasn’t going to work. This was set up to be Waxman’s excuse to do nothing or nearly nothing. It’s not there anymore.

Too bad for Henry, huh?

c. The Commissioners’ Statements Reveal that Common Sense is Divided on Party Lines. The Commissioners’ statements reveal a lack of communication within the Commission. I know they were talking but it appears that some messages weren’t being heard. The statements of the two Democrats (Moore apparently did not prepare a statement) were straight out of Central Casting. Disappointingly, Ms. Tenenbaum chose to repeat a fairy tale about the law’s origins:

“In response to the flood of dangerous imported products, which were involved in tragic fatalities, poisonings and injuries involving children, Congress closely examined the needs of the CPSC and the statutory changes necessary to enhance the regulatory safety net maintained by the agency. Congress spent considerable time reviewing these needs and continually consulted with the agency’s leaders, staff, consumer groups, and the regulated community in order to carefully craft the proper legislation to achieve this end. Seeing a clear need to reauthorize and reinvigorate CPSC with new energy and purpose, Congress passed a sweeping law.” [Emphasis added]

The re-characterization of what was essentially an anger-fueled legislative mania into some sort of group hug is apparently the Democrats’ effort to justify a passive or inert approach to fixing the law. In addition, both Tenenbaum and Adler repeated the misleading togline about the dangers of lead, although I don’t think that’s news anymore. It’s also not really relevant to discussing the issues under the law – and their persistent refusal to acknowledge this is disappointing.

The Republicans (Nord and Northup) delivered rational and balanced statements that calmly and appropriately diagnosed the issues with the law. They are cognizant of the excesses of the law, the dramatic impact on both the regulated community and the hobbled agency itself. The Reps make no effort to prop up the CPSIA – you know, the law passed by REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE. There’s no pride of authorship by the Reps – to their credit, these Commissioners seem to be trying to restore a rational system of law and regulation designed to provide appropriate levels of safety at an affordable cost.

I am tired of the Dems on the Commission simply being good Dem soldiers rather than committed stewards of safety. The ANGER expressed in Massachusetts today is a strong message to the Dems – America is sick and tired of government aggressively inserting itself into every aspect of our lives, including by way of the CPSIA and its precautionary principle. See tonight’s Wall Street Journal for more details. It will be interesting to see if Massachusetts impacts the CPSIA amendment process.

d. Does it Matter What’s Safe Anymore? I am struck again by the absurdity of the debate over lead. As I see it, the debate is over which incidents of lead that are illegal should be permitted. This is different from defining what constitutes safe lead. This used to be a simple decision. Now the premise is that there is NO safe level of lead. Is that really TRUE?

Think of ALL cases where lead is found in children’s products. Now separate them into two piles, one that is labeled “safe” and one that is labeled “not safe”. How do these piles compare to the piles made by the CPSIA, FHSA and CPSA? Well, that question never comes up in the debate. The big question is about compliance with law, not safety.

This is not a rational system for administering risk. First of all, if lead were so deadly that it needed to be eliminated in all cases in all children’s products, then presumably we would be even MORE motivated to remove it from our food, water and air (not to mention dirt). After all, we consume food etc. and the lead in the food gets into our bloodstreams. But this isn’t an issue today because the CPSIA didn’t make it illegal – and apparently the CPSC does not feel lead is dangerous in food, water or air (or else it would have acted on the threat under the FHSA). It gets worse – consider that lead paint is illegal on children’s products but not on cars. If lead is so dangerous and mere contact with lead-in-substrate is so dangerous that it is utterly intolerable in a modern, sophisticated society likes ours, then why does the CPSC permit kids to touch or even ride in cars? After all, the zipper pull on a kid’s golf bag is illegal if it has a dot of lead paint on it. But a whole car dripping with lead paint, that’s fine.

The answer – it doesn’t matter what’s safe when it comes to lead, it only matters what’s legal. The Dems prefer to portray what’s illegal as unsafe, and imply that what’s legal is safe. [Call this the All-Knowing Congress argument.] It’s hard to take this seriously. It’s time for them to drop the precautionary principle pretense and start being accountable for the rationality of their regulatory positions. If lead is a crisis as they say, then please ban everything with lead in it, including our entire food chain. I am ready to be safe, finally.

e. What Has Been Accomplished in the Last 18 Months??? Does it bother you as much as me that so little has been accomplished by the last 18 months of chaos? The many steps and achievements documented in the report and statements might make a bureaucrat blush with pride but how have injury statistics changed? [Recall statistics are a poor measure of the effectiveness of safety rules.] How much did we pay as a society for these extremely meager achievements? If you add in the cost to our society of a crippled safety agency, the price we paid is staggering. The waste is sickening. It’s not possible for me to read the recounting without a sense of loss.

f. Does Anyone Else Want An Exemption? Umm, Yeah! It’s important to note that the low number of exemption requests does not reflect a lack of interest in exemptions. Exemption requests are very expensive to prepare and are complex. In many cases, the exemption request will obviously be rejected or is too broad to state in any compelling way. For instance, educational products span so many categories that it is impossible to state a coherent exemption request. More importantly, the real inhibition to filing is a fear of losing the request. For many companies, it just doesn’t pay to ask for permission – they prefer to beg for forgiveness if a problem ever arises.

Anne Northup correctly notes in her statement that it is bad law to require that regulated companies line up for exemptions. She is not arguing on behalf of the companies – she focuses on the huge burden these requests place on the CPSC and the Commission. She is TOTALLY correct. The idea that we should have a safety system based on exceptions would only appeal to the IRS. Somebody needs to listen to Northup on this point.

g. The Report Whitewashes Ineffective Help for Resale Shops. It is a sad joke to assert that coaching resale shops with the CPSC’s guidance document and a few workshops is somehow a solution to the massive problem caused by the CPSIA. For one thing, it is quite clear that this message has not reached its audience. The CPSC’s approach is inherently inefficient and unlikely to bring relief to many affected stores. A better law is the necessary solution. Second, it is apparent that the CPSC’s efforts did not relieve anxiety – the stores are still dropping children’s items. This lack of accountability begins to look cynical when you consider that only last week, Scott Wolfson was warning people not to sell cheap jewelry on auction sites or in resale shops. Hmmm, that sounds very reassuring, doesn’t it? Problem solved!

If the Commission truly cares about resale shops, then a more effective approach (including a communication strategy) needs to be implemented.

With the issuance of the report and statements, the shuttlecock has been batted back to Congress. The next step is to work on a long-needed amendment of this awful law. Stay tuned.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Commission Report to Congress on CPSIA Changes

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 – How Important is Testing After All?

Let’s zoom up to 40,000 feet and look down on the CPSIA mess. If Martians were watching this affair unfold before their uncomprehending eyes, what would they think?

In 2007/8, a large number of toy recalls and jewelry recalls dominated the newspaper headlines. A closer examination of these recalls shows that they were largely restricted to lead-in-paint and lead-in-jewelry, but few people bothered with the details – hysteria was a lot easier. Sold on a rationale that it is “impossible” to know if something’s safe without testing it, Congress wrote up legislation to require prophylactic testing of all children’s products, a mind-boggling array of products ranging from pens to t-shirts to science kits to ATVs to shoes.

Being entirely unable to anticipate any problems with this brilliant construct, Congress was shocked to find that the CPSC couldn’t implement these requirements without crushing small businesses (among others). A finger-pointing contest broke out, where Congress insisted that the CPSC had the power to implement the new law with “common sense” (read, make up law to make the whiners go away) and the CPSC pushed back that it lacked regulatory flexibility under the CPSIA and legally was forbidden to assess risk. Standoff!

Of late, a weary and perhaps more sensitive CPSC is now taking a more conciliatory stance, expressing an interest, in the words of Ms. Tenenbaum, “to get it right”. Aside from soliciting feedback from stakeholders, the agency is clearly trying to draft rules permitting small companies to reduce their compliance costs. The net effect: testing is ebbing away. Now with component testing, it is possible for companies to get out of testing altogether for many of their products. Other rules, like flexible rules on rules on sampling and testing frequency, among other rules being crafted, are further reducing the testing burden. [I strongly support this movement by the CPSC, let there be no doubt.]

But I am confused now. Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America famously taught us that “Businesses’ assertion that they’re having to test products they know are safe is absurd. You only know if a product is safe if it’s been tested.” [Emphasis added.] Yet the CPSC seems to be pulling away from Ms. Weintraub and her wisdom on testing. Is testing critical or not? Is safety achievable in other ways (perhaps various elements in combination)? If testing isn’t so essential after all, what’s really going on here?

I have a theory to share on this question: The recent movement by the CPSC on testing is tacit acknowledgement of our argument that there is more to safety administration than testing. Furthermore, the ebbing of testing requirements is a further acknowledgement that we are not facing a massive public health crisis in children’s products – and never were. Yes, that means poison zippers, brass bushings, ATVs, pens and bikes really is a joke, as you thought. So why the big fuss, why isn’t everyone linking arms and singing Kumbaya, if there is acceptance that a lesser standard will be sufficient to ensure safety?

It’s simple – the issues go beyond this law, and that’s why the Dems in Congress will budge. In fact, we are pawns in a bigger game, namely the battle to establish the precautionary principle in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This is Mr. Waxman’s dream legislation, his effort to rein in the chemical industry. The folks behind the TSCA reform legislation are deeply suspicious of chemicals in our lives and want to regulate them on a precautionary basis, not entirely unlike the way we approve drugs. It’s the “fear of everything” all over again but BIGGER.

How does this tie back to the CPSIA? We are the test case, kids. The CPSIA was the first skirmish in the TSCA war. The two substances regulated on a precautionary basis under the CPSIA, lead and phthalates, either make or break the case on TSCA. If the Dems give in to our demands and acknowledge that their precautionary scheme didn’t work, that it ate up the regulatory agency (now nicknamed the Children’s Product Safety Commission), then how can they win approval of TSCA?

This is why the Dems are so resistant to rational change of this ridiculous law. This is why they won’t listen to reason or consider facts. The facts are contrary to their larger goals, so they need to ignore them or deny them. In this context, it is better to send us down the river than deal with our issues. Although their tough testing scheme is being unraveled, they won’t admit that it means that the crisis never was; without a crisis to fix, the entire logic of the CPSIA and their precautionary trial balloon fizzles. The Dems must insist that the crisis is still severe and that there is only one solution, the precautionary principle. Otherwise, they don’t get TSCA.

[Side note: There was a "telltale" in the Waxman amendment to the CPSIA last week on TSCA. A big issue in TSCA reform legislation is the possible use of "junk science" to justify removing valuable chemicals from use in our country. With all the self-appointed consumer representatives clamoring for a chemical-free world, there is good reason to fear manipulative use of science under TSCA to disrupt the chemical industry. It's no different than the misuse of lead toxicity and antimony health effects by consumer groups to attack toys and other children's products under the CPSIA. Some people have been insisting on a "peer-review" standard for these scientific challenges to chemical use - which Mr. Waxman fear may hobble his precautionary principle law. This term is used in Section 101 (b) in the CPSIA to make it more difficult to get exemptions - but was stripped out of the law in Mr. Waxman's unilateral amendment. See my first blogpost on his amendment. His "generous act" in removing this ridiculous stumbling block wasn't a signal of increasing sympathy with our problems. No, in fact, it was simply aimed at resolving one of his problems with TSCA.]

I have no easy answers for how this ends. If you feel your anger welling up, you’re not alone. Actually, I think the regulators are sick of it, too. The CPSIA has truly consumed the CPSC and made the daily affairs of that agency some kind of purgatory for the staff there. I can’t imagine it’s much fun being a Commissioner either. Frankly, the biggest shame of all is that by Congress (the Dems, really) insisting on an unworkable scheme for reasons unrelated to children’s product safety, the agency has been rendered ineffective, bureaucratic and stuck in gridlock. The CPSC’s essential role has been mooted. That’s bad for everybody – in a perfect world, the agency is free to do its job and look for real safety problems to solve. Instead, it has to spend its time figuring out whether water slides are primarily intended for children and the like. What a tragic waste.

In the wake of last week’s demise of the Waxman amendment and the extension of the lead content Stay, we must retain our focus and continue to push hard for a change in the law. The facts are piling up and the excuses for inaction are fading. It’s time for action – for the good of consumers, for the good of industry and for the good of the CPSC.

Read more here:
CPSIA – How Important is Testing After All?

CPSIA – How Important is Testing After All?

Let’s zoom up to 40,000 feet and look down on the CPSIA mess. If Martians were watching this affair unfold before their uncomprehending eyes, what would they think?

In 2007/8, a large number of toy recalls and jewelry recalls dominated the newspaper headlines. A closer examination of these recalls shows that they were largely restricted to lead-in-paint and lead-in-jewelry, but few people bothered with the details – hysteria was a lot easier. Sold on a rationale that it is “impossible” to know if something’s safe without testing it, Congress wrote up legislation to require prophylactic testing of all children’s products, a mind-boggling array of products ranging from pens to t-shirts to science kits to ATVs to shoes.

Being entirely unable to anticipate any problems with this brilliant construct, Congress was shocked to find that the CPSC couldn’t implement these requirements without crushing small businesses (among others). A finger-pointing contest broke out, where Congress insisted that the CPSC had the power to implement the new law with “common sense” (read, make up law to make the whiners go away) and the CPSC pushed back that it lacked regulatory flexibility under the CPSIA and legally was forbidden to assess risk. Standoff!

Of late, a weary and perhaps more sensitive CPSC is now taking a more conciliatory stance, expressing an interest, in the words of Ms. Tenenbaum, “to get it right”. Aside from soliciting feedback from stakeholders, the agency is clearly trying to draft rules permitting small companies to reduce their compliance costs. The net effect: testing is ebbing away. Now with component testing, it is possible for companies to get out of testing altogether for many of their products. Other rules, like flexible rules on rules on sampling and testing frequency, among other rules being crafted, are further reducing the testing burden. [I strongly support this movement by the CPSC, let there be no doubt.]

But I am confused now. Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America famously taught us that “Businesses’ assertion that they’re having to test products they know are safe is absurd. You only know if a product is safe if it’s been tested.” [Emphasis added.] Yet the CPSC seems to be pulling away from Ms. Weintraub and her wisdom on testing. Is testing critical or not? Is safety achievable in other ways (perhaps various elements in combination)? If testing isn’t so essential after all, what’s really going on here?

I have a theory to share on this question: The recent movement by the CPSC on testing is tacit acknowledgement of our argument that there is more to safety administration than testing. Furthermore, the ebbing of testing requirements is a further acknowledgement that we are not facing a massive public health crisis in children’s products – and never were. Yes, that means poison zippers, brass bushings, ATVs, pens and bikes really is a joke, as you thought. So why the big fuss, why isn’t everyone linking arms and singing Kumbaya, if there is acceptance that a lesser standard will be sufficient to ensure safety?

It’s simple – the issues go beyond this law, and that’s why the Dems in Congress will budge. In fact, we are pawns in a bigger game, namely the battle to establish the precautionary principle in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This is Mr. Waxman’s dream legislation, his effort to rein in the chemical industry. The folks behind the TSCA reform legislation are deeply suspicious of chemicals in our lives and want to regulate them on a precautionary basis, not entirely unlike the way we approve drugs. It’s the “fear of everything” all over again but BIGGER.

How does this tie back to the CPSIA? We are the test case, kids. The CPSIA was the first skirmish in the TSCA war. The two substances regulated on a precautionary basis under the CPSIA, lead and phthalates, either make or break the case on TSCA. If the Dems give in to our demands and acknowledge that their precautionary scheme didn’t work, that it ate up the regulatory agency (now nicknamed the Children’s Product Safety Commission), then how can they win approval of TSCA?

This is why the Dems are so resistant to rational change of this ridiculous law. This is why they won’t listen to reason or consider facts. The facts are contrary to their larger goals, so they need to ignore them or deny them. In this context, it is better to send us down the river than deal with our issues. Although their tough testing scheme is being unraveled, they won’t admit that it means that the crisis never was; without a crisis to fix, the entire logic of the CPSIA and their precautionary trial balloon fizzles. The Dems must insist that the crisis is still severe and that there is only one solution, the precautionary principle. Otherwise, they don’t get TSCA.

[Side note: There was a "telltale" in the Waxman amendment to the CPSIA last week on TSCA. A big issue in TSCA reform legislation is the possible use of "junk science" to justify removing valuable chemicals from use in our country. With all the self-appointed consumer representatives clamoring for a chemical-free world, there is good reason to fear manipulative use of science under TSCA to disrupt the chemical industry. It's no different than the misuse of lead toxicity and antimony health effects by consumer groups to attack toys and other children's products under the CPSIA. Some people have been insisting on a "peer-review" standard for these scientific challenges to chemical use - which Mr. Waxman fear may hobble his precautionary principle law. This term is used in Section 101 (b) in the CPSIA to make it more difficult to get exemptions - but was stripped out of the law in Mr. Waxman's unilateral amendment. See my first blogpost on his amendment. His "generous act" in removing this ridiculous stumbling block wasn't a signal of increasing sympathy with our problems. No, in fact, it was simply aimed at resolving one of his problems with TSCA.]

I have no easy answers for how this ends. If you feel your anger welling up, you’re not alone. Actually, I think the regulators are sick of it, too. The CPSIA has truly consumed the CPSC and made the daily affairs of that agency some kind of purgatory for the staff there. I can’t imagine it’s much fun being a Commissioner either. Frankly, the biggest shame of all is that by Congress (the Dems, really) insisting on an unworkable scheme for reasons unrelated to children’s product safety, the agency has been rendered ineffective, bureaucratic and stuck in gridlock. The CPSC’s essential role has been mooted. That’s bad for everybody – in a perfect world, the agency is free to do its job and look for real safety problems to solve. Instead, it has to spend its time figuring out whether water slides are primarily intended for children and the like. What a tragic waste.

In the wake of last week’s demise of the Waxman amendment and the extension of the lead content Stay, we must retain our focus and continue to push hard for a change in the law. The facts are piling up and the excuses for inaction are fading. It’s time for action – for the good of consumers, for the good of industry and for the good of the CPSC.

Read more here:
CPSIA – How Important is Testing After All?

« Previous Page — Next Page »