CPSIA – Dem CPSC Commissioner Bias Against Manufacturers MUST Be Stopped!

Before the April 7th House hearing on the CPSIA, the three Democratic CPSC Commissioners joined together to assert that in the absence of their “leadership” at the agency and their vaunted CPSIA law, manufacturers would be “dosing” children with lead in ever greater amounts. To be precise , they said they oppose “any change in the law that would lead to an increase in the doses of lead to which our children are exposed on a daily basis . . . .” According to them, changing the law means that “doses” of lead WILL increase (but leaving everything “as is”, including their position at the helm, means that children will remain “safe”). In other words, they were warning Congress that “we” are planning to or will inevitably increase lead “doses” upon a change in the law. Our company is a manufacturer of children’s products, in particular educational materials and educational products. This scurrilous libel applies to me. I don’t like it one bit, either. Despite having previously raised this point in this space, I am still not quite sure people fully comprehend how offensive this action by Tenenbaum, Adler and Moore actually is. Of course, we all know the word “dosing” is offensive on its face. Everyone also knows that accusing me and my manufacturing peers of an absence of values and integrity, not to mention an actual present intent to harm children, is remarkably slanderous, unfair, untrue and completely unknowable. It’s practically a blood libel . But what I don’t think is clear is how grievously the three Democrats have violated a basic tenet of American social justice. in their panicky effort to appease consumer group zealots, the Dems have demonstrated a bias, a dyed-in-the-wool prejudice against an amorphous mass of people tied together only by false accusation. It would be their undoing if they had used the same logic to attack just about anyone else. Consider the following: How would you feel IF Inez Tenenbaum said she was opposed to changes in CPSIA lead rules because she didn’t want black people or gays to start “dosing” children with more lead? or . . . IF Bob Adler objected to changes in CPSIA lead rules because he said he wanted to prevent Jews from “dosing” children with more lead as they are wont to do? or . . . IF Thomas Moore pointed to Muslims as the principal danger in relaxing CPSIA lead rules? The shock waves would reach tsunami heights. None of these people would still be working for the federal government, either. Public outrage would ride them out on a rail. Of course, they didn’t say any of these things (to my knowledge). Instead, the three Dem CPSC Commissioners stood shoulder-to-shoulder and simply said they can’t abide the changes because manufacturers will “dose” children with lead. Can’t trust manufacturers . . . . This apparently is quite believable. The media bites down hard on the silly story, that’s for sure. Consider Jeff Gelles of the Philadelphia Inquirer : “With bigger matters at stake, it was easy to overlook another drama unfolding last week: a little-noticed assault on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s efforts to improve children’s safety and the transparency of its complaint-handling process. But it sadly fits right into the theme of a Republican Party eager to please its core constituencies – in this case, business groups that often bristle at any regulation, even ones designed to protect children from unsafe products.” If it’s “obvious”, it must be true, right? Yes, if you are biased . . . or a bigot . . . or gullible. So apparently, it’s “believable” when politicians abuse their power by accusing me of an intent to harm children (despite the fact that we have a virtually unblemished record of safety and I have devoted my business life to making children’s lives better) – all because I am a member of a group called “manufacturers”. Had they leveled the same accusation at me or at a group including me based on race, creed, color, gender, religion, sexual preference or some such, they would be banished from our government. This is a dirty bias exposed, plain and simple. The Dems’ accusation is also the height of cowardice, relying on political power to bludgeon a group of randomly-selected citizens for political gain. They know they have overwhelming power and are unlikely to be accountable for this malicious lie. This isn’t the first time Inez Tenenbaum has resorted to this kind of unscrupulous media and Congressional pandering. You may recall my outrage over her statement to ABC News on the first day of the Xmas selling season last year (September 30th) when she used the occasion of Mattel’s 11 million unit recall to warn America against “manufacturers” who don’t design in safety up front. In my blogpost entitled ” Recall the CPSC “, I questioned why Ms. Tenenbaum was warning American consumers about our company – after all, we are a manufacturer. What had we done to deserve this treatment from Ms. Tenenbaum? Had WE suffered a massive recall? Had WE injured children? Did she have ANY evidence that WE were doing a bad job of “[building] safety into the product from the very beginning”? Nope, she didn’t – she made that accusation without any cause to do so. Mattel erred (if they actually did), NOT US. This is called bias. Read her remarks but substitute in the words “Jews”, “black people”, “gays” or “Muslims” for “manufacturers” to see the effect clearly. She was WAAAAAY off-base, but who held her to account? No one. It’s okay to have a bias against manufacturers. What can we do about this? I think it’s incumbent on Congress to do something about it. Let’s be frank – Congress appointed these people and they are accountable for the government that we “enjoy”. Is Congress ready to let bigotry and bias form the basis of our laws and our regulatory system? Is Congress ready to abandon its responsibility for oversight and to manage these rogues? How about a sense of basic fairness – there are huge numbers of manufacturers serving the American market. They are our neighbors, our friends, our relatives. Are we satisfied having a government run by people who HATE and DISTRUST manufacturers, think that “justice” involves taking away their due process and deciding cases before evidence is heard? I sure hope somebody’s listening. This is a MAJOR PROBLEM. It’s time to end the reign of terror at the CPSC!

Visit link:
CPSIA – Dem CPSC Commissioner Bias Against Manufacturers MUST Be Stopped!

CPSIA – If The CPSC Goes Out, Do You Think They’ll Come Back???

With the Federal government about to shut down, one wonders – could we possibly live without the CPSC for a few days? I, for one, would very much like to find out. But what about the CHILDREN, you say. It’s a horrifying thought. After all, with annual expenditures of north of $100 million per hyear and in recent times an obsession with children, the CPSC has managed to uncover one death allegedly tied to lead (swallowing a jewelry bangle) and three injuries tied to lead-in-paint over an 11-year period from 1999 – 2010. That’s what you get for regulatory expense of more than $1 billion – four alleged injuries. Value for the dollar . . . . In the last couple years, though, the federal government in its infinite wisdom has chosen to pass all regulatory cost increases on to YOU. Yes, in a new innovation making rising taxes obsolete, Congress raised YOUR costs by billions each year when it inflicted the CPSIA on America. I have previously presented an analysis based on Congressional testimony that estimates those costs at more than $5.6 billion each year. And I think that’s low. I know you’re probably not a statistician, but what are the odds that lowering the ten-year results from four alleged injuries to zero alleged injuries would be considered statistically significant? I believe the answer is zero or very very low. $5.6 billion a year doesn’t buy much, does it? The scale of the threat was explored in a revealing moment yesterday when the infamous Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America was asked by four different members of Congress for names or lists of victims of lead-in-substrate. She couldn’t name any. Dana Best had no chance to answer such questions, because she bolted before questioning. I rather doubt the members were much in the mood to accept an answer of “jillions” anyway. I haven’t had a chance to review the tape yet, but I understand Ms. Weintraub assured Congress in response to these queries that lead is a “silent” harm-doer. Rachel says there;s no way to tell . . . so I guess the implication is that we should assume millions of kids have been harmed. Possibly bazillions. Who knows?! Has anyone considered the possibility that the injured children that only Ms. Weintraub and Dr. Best can see are IMAGINARY? Consider this argument: Rachel and Dana and their ilk have had three years to find a victim, any victim, at any time since Hector had pups. They have failed in this endeavor. Maybe Rachel and Dana didn’t try, maybe they don’t care. After all, they probably thinks they’re right and who are we to challenge either of them. No response required. . . .. But IF Rachel’s right, why don’t the numbers yield up MANY victims? It really shouldn;t be hard to find injured kids – which makes the failure to do so all the more galling. There are lots of children in the regulated age group – more than 50 million. That population is constantly changing because kids “age out”. So if you look over a decade, say, you might be talking about 75+ million. What do these kids do? What all kids do. They play, they breathe, they eat, they ride ATVs, they lick bicycles, they suck on the ink end of pens, they consume fistfuls of rhinestones, the usual. Some of them oddly do extreme things. You are looking at a BIG population. Over a decade, that’s HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS of product interactions, some of them excessive. And yet there are no known victims. Hmmm. Perhaps this is a pretty low probability event. And not worth $5.6 billion a year in excess costs. So when the CPSC goes out, will anyone notice? That;s a good question. It may be an experiment worth running. And if the world doesn’t come to an end without them, perhaps Congress might find something new to cut when life gets back to normal. There’s no safe level of fear mongering, guys. Your Friend, The “Lead Doser”

Read this article:
CPSIA – If The CPSC Goes Out, Do You Think They’ll Come Back???

CPSIA – If The CPSC Goes Out, Do You Think They’ll Come Back???

With the Federal government about to shut down, one wonders – could we possibly live without the CPSC for a few days? I, for one, would very much like to find out. But what about the CHILDREN, you say. It’s a horrifying thought. After all, with annual expenditures of north of $100 million per hyear and in recent times an obsession with children, the CPSC has managed to uncover one death allegedly tied to lead (swallowing a jewelry bangle) and three injuries tied to lead-in-paint over an 11-year period from 1999 – 2010. That’s what you get for regulatory expense of more than $1 billion – four alleged injuries. Value for the dollar . . . . In the last couple years, though, the federal government in its infinite wisdom has chosen to pass all regulatory cost increases on to YOU. Yes, in a new innovation making rising taxes obsolete, Congress raised YOUR costs by billions each year when it inflicted the CPSIA on America. I have previously presented an analysis based on Congressional testimony that estimates those costs at more than $5.6 billion each year. And I think that’s low. I know you’re probably not a statistician, but what are the odds that lowering the ten-year results from four alleged injuries to zero alleged injuries would be considered statistically significant? I believe the answer is zero or very very low. $5.6 billion a year doesn’t buy much, does it? The scale of the threat was explored in a revealing moment yesterday when the infamous Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America was asked by four different members of Congress for names or lists of victims of lead-in-substrate. She couldn’t name any. Dana Best had no chance to answer such questions, because she bolted before questioning. I rather doubt the members were much in the mood to accept an answer of “jillions” anyway. I haven’t had a chance to review the tape yet, but I understand Ms. Weintraub assured Congress in response to these queries that lead is a “silent” harm-doer. Rachel says there;s no way to tell . . . so I guess the implication is that we should assume millions of kids have been harmed. Possibly bazillions. Who knows?! Has anyone considered the possibility that the injured children that only Ms. Weintraub and Dr. Best can see are IMAGINARY? Consider this argument: Rachel and Dana and their ilk have had three years to find a victim, any victim, at any time since Hector had pups. They have failed in this endeavor. Maybe Rachel and Dana didn’t try, maybe they don’t care. After all, they probably thinks they’re right and who are we to challenge either of them. No response required. . . .. But IF Rachel’s right, why don’t the numbers yield up MANY victims? It really shouldn;t be hard to find injured kids – which makes the failure to do so all the more galling. There are lots of children in the regulated age group – more than 50 million. That population is constantly changing because kids “age out”. So if you look over a decade, say, you might be talking about 75+ million. What do these kids do? What all kids do. They play, they breathe, they eat, they ride ATVs, they lick bicycles, they suck on the ink end of pens, they consume fistfuls of rhinestones, the usual. Some of them oddly do extreme things. You are looking at a BIG population. Over a decade, that’s HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS of product interactions, some of them excessive. And yet there are no known victims. Hmmm. Perhaps this is a pretty low probability event. And not worth $5.6 billion a year in excess costs. So when the CPSC goes out, will anyone notice? That;s a good question. It may be an experiment worth running. And if the world doesn’t come to an end without them, perhaps Congress might find something new to cut when life gets back to normal. There’s no safe level of fear mongering, guys. Your Friend, The “Lead Doser”

Read more:
CPSIA – If The CPSC Goes Out, Do You Think They’ll Come Back???

CPSIA – The Senate Wants to Save ATVs . . . What about the Rest of Us???

Yesterday Senators Klobuchar and Tester offered an amendment to S. 493, a moving bill to reauthorize the small business administration (“SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011″).

CPSIA – Star-Tribune Op-Ed Blasts CPSIA for ATV Effects

[Editor's Note: I have a postscript to add to this Op-Ed. See the bottom for an additional fact to consider.]

Mike Larson: Toy lead ban puts kids on ATVs at risk

By MIKE LARSON
March 27, 2011
Commentary

In a month or so, the snow will be gone, the Twins will again be fighting for a pennant and thousands of families will be hitting the trails on ATVs looking for fun and adventure.

Unfortunately, this year more kids are likely to be riding larger, adult-sized ATVs because thousands of dealers like me can’t sell youth model ATVs or mini bikes.

Why? Because of a ridiculous political fight in Washington, D.C., that is putting our kids in danger.

ATV dealers and others in our industry are caught in the middle of a political tug-of-war because of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), a law that included new, strict standards for lead in toys — but created such a broad definition of “children’s products” that it ended up banning the sale of youth model ATVs, mini-bikes and other off-highway vehicles because they contain small amounts of lead.

Yes, you read that correctly: ATVs and motorcycles designed to meet the size and performance needs of young riders ages 6 to 12 became “banned hazardous substances” under the new law.

Because lead must be ingested in order to be a health risk, the small amounts of lead that are embedded in metal parts, like the frame and the battery terminals to enhance the safety and functionality of these components, pose no risk to kids.

While not one case of lead poisoning can be documented from children riding youth model ATVs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s own data shows that more than 90 percent of youth injuries and fatalities occur on larger, adult-size vehicles.

In fact, the CPSC, the ATV industry, safety advocates and parents all agree that it’s critical to keep youth riders off adult-sized ATVs, and have cooperated for years to educate ATV riders that children should ride only ATVs that are the correct size for them.

The CPSC’s own scientists agree that the presence of lead in these products does not present a health hazard to children. CPSC staff wrote to Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who helped write the bill:

“The possibility that children will suffer significant lead exposures from [youth model ATVs] appears to be remote at best….A child using an adult ATV as a substitute would face a far graver and more immediate risk than that of the possible lead exposure from the youth ATVs.”

Dingell is now calling for Congress to fix the law.

The CPSC also tried to temporarily address the ban by issuing a stay of enforcement in 2009.

Unfortunately, this hasn’t helped because the many manufacturers and dealers have chosen not to sell the smallest youth model ATVs because of the risks of selling under the stay, and there’s now a limited availability of these products for consumers.

In fact, half of the major ATV manufacturers are no longer selling youth model off-highway vehicles.

The financial impact on our industry has been devastating. Many dealerships throughout the country have closed because of losing the sales of youth-sized machines on top of an already depressed market. Many dealerships have had to lay off workers to stay open. These actions add job losses to an already challenging economic environment.

ATV and motor-sports enthusiasts have sent hundreds of thousands of letters and e-mails to Congress urging an end to the ban. Sen. Amy Klobuchar has pledged her support, and we urge her and other Minnesota members of Congress to take a leadership role in resolving this ridiculous situation. We’ve heard a lot of talk from both Republicans and Democrats that this ban must end, but for two years nothing has been done as politics has prevented Congress from addressing this problem.

Kids aren’t licking or eating their ATVs, but they just might ride adult-sized ATVs thanks to this ban. Congress is putting kids in danger by refusing to address this problem.

Mike Larson is owner of Larsons Cycle in Cambridge, Minn.

Editor’s Postscript: I attended a meeting of stakeholders on January 6th in Washington hosted jointly by Republican and Democratic staff for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to discuss possible changes to the CPSIA. [I wrote about this meeting a couple times earlier this year.] At this meeting, Cindy Pelligrini of the AAP admitted that the fact that the CPSIA tacitly banned youth model ATVs was fine with her and her employer. Why? As she noted, the AAP has long wanted youth model ATVs banned. Changing the law would only open the door to a reversal of this other policy objective of theirs. In other words, the AAP is using its standing with Democratic legislators to push an agenda with a “double benefit”. Rather than fighting to ban youth model ATVs directly, a battle it would certainly lose, the AAP used the indirect route of overselling a lead standard that they knew ATVs could not meet. ATVs weren’t banned under this law by accident. They were hardly an “unintended consequence.” The damage to Minnesota businesses has been significant under this law. Next time, Ms. Klobuchar should pick her allies more carefully.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Star-Tribune Op-Ed Blasts CPSIA for ATV Effects

CPSIA – Remember the Victims (If You Can Find Them)

Rumorville has it that a draft amendment to the CPSIA is pending in the next few days. As I contemplate what that might mean, I think back to where the CPSIA began and what has been achieved in its wake.

As an aside, there are actual poisoning risks in the world. As previously noted, the Japanese nuclear crisis seems pretty real to me. In the past 24 hours, the owner of the disabled Japanese reactors told the press that they evacuated one of the reactors (again) because the radiation level was now a mere 1o million times “normal” levels. As if to make the point that they are out of their depth, the Japanese utility later announced that it wasn’t really 10 million times too high, just 100,000 times. It’s always good to check your work.

In the U.S., we remain blissfully, almost quaintly obsessed with lead. Lead is THE problem we need to solve, apparently, according to the junior scientists who called themselves the 110th Congress. As far as I can tell, the CPSC has enthusiastically embraced this point of view.

Why?

Well, we have been told monotonously that there is NO safe level for lead. Commissioner Bob Adler wrote a 21-page treatise to “prove” the point (rebutted by yours truly here). And the consumer groups, ably represented by Don Mays of Consumer Union and Dana Best of the AAP, repeated the slogan in their February 16th testimony on the urgent need to reduce lead levels to 100 ppm. When the lead zealots speak of the dire need to protect against this “scourge”, they never speak in terms of CPSC injury statistics. That makes sense. As I have documented, there have been fewer lead injuries in a decade than the fingers on your right hand.

But isn’t this all about injuries? If there is REALLY no safe level for lead, shouldn’t it be easy to find victims? Ahem, the consumer groups state that lead harms “silently”. You can’t tell you are being harmed, you see! When questioned about “victims”, those few deigning to respond to my stupid questions (Jan Schakowsky and a staffer for a Senate Democrat) point to a meeting held in May 2008 with victims of lead poisoning. Nonetheless, they have never produced victim case histories and typically simply wag their fingers at me over lead poisoning.

I am no fan of lead or of lead poisoning, believe me, but I think I am entitled to an answer. If the object of the law is the prevention of childhood injuries, and if this May 2008 meeting was the critical basis for the push for the CPSIA, who were the victims at the meeting? How many victims were seen, and how were they poisoned?

Before we answer this question, it is important to note that the issue here is NOT lead-in-paint. As is well-known, lead-in-paint has been illegal for decades. Victims of lead-in-paint from products sold today are victims of violations of law. We are looking to find victims of lead-in-substrate. The over-arching regulation of lead-in-substrate is the source of the regulatory misery that befell ATVs, bicycles, pens, musical instruments, books, educational materials, rhinestones, t-shirts, shoes, and so on.

Do these victims exist? No lead zealot or CPSIA apologist has ever produced even one lead-in-substrate victim in three years. Were they at the May 2008 meeting? The Internet knows all. Parents of two childhood victims of lead-in-paint were present at the 2008 meeting, as identified in several press reports. See “Parents Visit Congress to ‘Get the Lead Out’ of Toys“, as well as “Congress vs. lobbyists over tainted toys” and this transcript of the Lou Dobbs Show (May 23, 2008) thoughtfully provided by the plaintiffs lawyer front Center for Justice and Democracy. There is no mention of any child harmed by lead-in-substrate. Two victims of lead-in-paint spurred this legislation. That’s it.

Without a demonstration that there are actual victims of lead-in-substrate in existence, the CPSIA has no proven factual basis. It’s all pure conjecture. Playing fast and loose with the facts, the lead zealots have SOLD the idea that this law was necessary, all without PROOF. Perhaps in the heady days of 2007/8, the legislators didn’t recognize the significance of the data problem. But today, members of the 112th Congress, facing the prospect of an amendment to fix the CPSIA, cannot afford the same ignorance. Constituents have been screaming for years now – and apparently with good reason.

The misuse of data, the zealots’ twisting of fear of lead-in-paint into a blind fear of everything, got us into this mess. Questions need to be asked as the new amendment is processed. Why are we doing this? Who is really being protected here?

In desperation, the consumer groups are saying just about anything to keep their law in place. Spreading fear of bicycle licking and trombone playing is certainly not beneath them. Dr. Dana Best sums up the consumer groups’ dubious, twisted “argument” for the need for a tightened CPSIA: “An object containing 77 ppm of lead is capable of raising a child’s blood level level to a level that would result in the loss of one IQ point. . . . Ingestion of an item containing 300 ppm of lead would result in the loss of almost four IQ points . . . . 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]

Yet Dr. Best cannot deliver the goods to prove her farfetched theories and even more farfetched mathematics. Stating the danger in terms of 3.75 million possible victims is corrupt and immoral when you cannot deliver even one victim.

Let’s cross our fingers that Congress is resolved to not be fooled again. If there is a hearing, ask for real data, real case histories, real proof.

I can’t wait to hear about the kid who licked the ATV engine block and was poisoned by . . . lead? Give me a break.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Remember the Victims (If You Can Find Them)

CPSIA – Remember the Victims (If You Can Find Them)

Rumorville has it that a draft amendment to the CPSIA is pending in the next few days. As I contemplate what that might mean, I think back to where the CPSIA began and what has been achieved in its wake.

As an aside, there are actual poisoning risks in the world. As previously noted, the Japanese nuclear crisis seems pretty real to me. In the past 24 hours, the owner of the disabled Japanese reactors told the press that they evacuated one of the reactors (again) because the radiation level was now a mere 1o million times “normal” levels. As if to make the point that they are out of their depth, the Japanese utility later announced that it wasn’t really 10 million times too high, just 100,000 times. It’s always good to check your work.

In the U.S., we remain blissfully, almost quaintly obsessed with lead. Lead is THE problem we need to solve, apparently, according to the junior scientists who called themselves the 110th Congress. As far as I can tell, the CPSC has enthusiastically embraced this point of view.

Why?

Well, we have been told monotonously that there is NO safe level for lead. Commissioner Bob Adler wrote a 21-page treatise to “prove” the point (rebutted by yours truly here). And the consumer groups, ably represented by Don Mays of Consumer Union and Dana Best of the AAP, repeated the slogan in their February 16th testimony on the urgent need to reduce lead levels to 100 ppm. When the lead zealots speak of the dire need to protect against this “scourge”, they never speak in terms of CPSC injury statistics. That makes sense. As I have documented, there have been fewer lead injuries in a decade than the fingers on your right hand.

But isn’t this all about injuries? If there is REALLY no safe level for lead, shouldn’t it be easy to find victims? Ahem, the consumer groups state that lead harms “silently”. You can’t tell you are being harmed, you see! When questioned about “victims”, those few deigning to respond to my stupid questions (Jan Schakowsky and a staffer for a Senate Democrat) point to a meeting held in May 2008 with victims of lead poisoning. Nonetheless, they have never produced victim case histories and typically simply wag their fingers at me over lead poisoning.

I am no fan of lead or of lead poisoning, believe me, but I think I am entitled to an answer. If the object of the law is the prevention of childhood injuries, and if this May 2008 meeting was the critical basis for the push for the CPSIA, who were the victims at the meeting? How many victims were seen, and how were they poisoned?

Before we answer this question, it is important to note that the issue here is NOT lead-in-paint. As is well-known, lead-in-paint has been illegal for decades. Victims of lead-in-paint from products sold today are victims of violations of law. We are looking to find victims of lead-in-substrate. The over-arching regulation of lead-in-substrate is the source of the regulatory misery that befell ATVs, bicycles, pens, musical instruments, books, educational materials, rhinestones, t-shirts, shoes, and so on.

Do these victims exist? No lead zealot or CPSIA apologist has ever produced even one lead-in-substrate victim in three years. Were they at the May 2008 meeting? The Internet knows all. Parents of two childhood victims of lead-in-paint were present at the 2008 meeting, as identified in several press reports. See “Parents Visit Congress to ‘Get the Lead Out’ of Toys“, as well as “Congress vs. lobbyists over tainted toys” and this transcript of the Lou Dobbs Show (May 23, 2008) thoughtfully provided by the plaintiffs lawyer front Center for Justice and Democracy. There is no mention of any child harmed by lead-in-substrate. Two victims of lead-in-paint spurred this legislation. That’s it.

Without a demonstration that there are actual victims of lead-in-substrate in existence, the CPSIA has no proven factual basis. It’s all pure conjecture. Playing fast and loose with the facts, the lead zealots have SOLD the idea that this law was necessary, all without PROOF. Perhaps in the heady days of 2007/8, the legislators didn’t recognize the significance of the data problem. But today, members of the 112th Congress, facing the prospect of an amendment to fix the CPSIA, cannot afford the same ignorance. Constituents have been screaming for years now – and apparently with good reason.

The misuse of data, the zealots’ twisting of fear of lead-in-paint into a blind fear of everything, got us into this mess. Questions need to be asked as the new amendment is processed. Why are we doing this? Who is really being protected here?

In desperation, the consumer groups are saying just about anything to keep their law in place. Spreading fear of bicycle licking and trombone playing is certainly not beneath them. Dr. Dana Best sums up the consumer groups’ dubious, twisted “argument” for the need for a tightened CPSIA: “An object containing 77 ppm of lead is capable of raising a child’s blood level level to a level that would result in the loss of one IQ point. . . . Ingestion of an item containing 300 ppm of lead would result in the loss of almost four IQ points . . . . 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]

Yet Dr. Best cannot deliver the goods to prove her farfetched theories and even more farfetched mathematics. Stating the danger in terms of 3.75 million possible victims is corrupt and immoral when you cannot deliver even one victim.

Let’s cross our fingers that Congress is resolved to not be fooled again. If there is a hearing, ask for real data, real case histories, real proof.

I can’t wait to hear about the kid who licked the ATV engine block and was poisoned by . . . lead? Give me a break.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Remember the Victims (If You Can Find Them)

CPSIA – Can You Trust Me on the CPSIA Database?

I have received a fair bit of feedback on my recent posts relating to the CPSIA Database. You may recall that I highlighted the CPSC policy decision to knowingly post untrue and misleading complaints about consumer products on the grounds that they state the opinion of consumers of a “risk of harm”. Apparently, the ignorance of those opinions or outright, blatant error matters not to our CPSC market administrators. Our submission of a valid CPSIA test report and photographic evidence was not persuasive of our common sense position in the instant case.

[The rejection of a CPSIA test report in refutation of an invalid "product incident" complaint is fascinating, given the vigorous and oft-repeated consumer group assertion that consumers DEMAND test reports to feel "secure" that children's products are safe. Supposedly, consumers assume "somebody" is testing everything, or at least that's the poppycock the consumer groups flog. This is a bedrock "assumption" underlying the CPSIA. Isn't it interesting then that the CSPC apparently places so little stock in these critically important test reports???]

Par for the course, my comments in this space never get an official response. The substance of my complaints go unanswered – but in this case, the rumor mill is churning. That’s my answer, I guess. I am told that little birds (from the CPSC) are chirping that I am taking the CPSC’s response “out of context”.

This is a great tactic because the argument makes it unnecessary to respond to my points. It also changes the debate, from the substance of my database objections to the subject of my character. Lending credence to the vague and unproven accusations is the official stature of the CPSC and its staff. CPSC job titles convey credibility, and my lowly status as a “blogger” and a “Small Business” makes everything I write subject to doubt. Who knows more about safety and the law? Who is more trustworthy? Who speaks with greater authority? My character is an easy target, much easier to attack than my points about the database.

And how am I to defend myself? I don’t have the option to hide in the shadows and say they are twisting facts. You get to read what I say . . . .

I have long adhered to principles of truthfulness and full disclosure in this space. I defy you to find a better documented space devoted to analysis of the CPSIA and its wide-ranging impact. I use real data and link to actual source materials. In this case, I quoted from a letter from a senior CPSC official. I have not revealed who wrote it – for two reasons. First, this person speaks for the agency, and as such, it is the agency that is responsible. I think the institution should be accountable, even if individuals are its mouthpiece(s). Second, this is not personal and as a consequence, the identity of the email’s author is a secondary consideration. The law is the problem. The authorship of the email is off point.

Well, why don’t you decide for yourself? Can you trust me?

Email no. 1 (March 4, from our company):

“The LER 7273 that the initial complaint was issued for is a discontinued product and is no longer available for sale in our catalogs. I have attached a test report for this item showing its compliance to both ASTM F-963 and EN-71. I have also provided you pictures which clearly shows the hearts are much larger than the choke tube requirements.

Can you please confirm that the providing of this detail, which clearly shows that the product was tested to be in compliance and the additional photos clearly showing the product complies with the stated issue, would not appear in the database after March 11th?

This type of complaint is exactly what we find to be very troubling with the database to our industry. This is an example where someone saw a photo of a product and without even touching it or seeing it in person filed a claim that they feel it ‘might’ be a hazard. There is no indication of potential harm or actual harm caused, just a feeling that it might be dangerous. We were able to quickly provide testing documents and photographic evidence that the product is compliant to all applicable standards and product requirements with no potential choking hazard with the hearts provided with the product. The concern is that this unjustified complaint will be placed on the database with a reply from us that proves it is not an issue, but the damage has been done and the perception to the end consumer is that this product is not safe.

Thanks again for your help in understanding the application of the database and it’s intended applicability going forward.”

Email no. 2 (March 8, from our company):

“Our ten day response window is coming up fast on the complaint that we had issued against us. Have you had a chance to discuss the information I sent to you on Friday? Thanks.”

Email no. 3 (March 9, from CPSC):

“As we discussed last Friday , since we are in soft launch, the report will not be posted in the public database. When I called you last Friday, I told you the staff consensus was that but for soft launch the report of harm would be posted in the database, and you would have to decide whether to post a comment or a claim for material inaccuracy. When we discussed the issue further and I asked you to send me the information you sent last Friday, I did not understand that you were still attempting to resolve the issue in the ten day time frame.

I should make it clear from the outset that I am not the person within the agency with the delegated authority to handle material inaccuracy claims. This email reflects my opinions and not those of the Commission and has not been reviewed by the Commissioners. When you first approached me about this at ICPHSO, I told you that my gut reaction was that despite the concerns you raised, the Commission staff handling these issues would take the consumer’s report at face value as a claim raising a concern of a risk of harm. I explained then that your Firm could provide a comment with your objections to the report or object to the report as materially inaccurate. Given your concerns about the report, I raised the issue with the database team handling the issues and confirmed to you in our call last Friday that the response was the same. I also indicated that the claim of material inaccuracy would likely be denied. I explained that the personnel handling these matters were not making decisions as to whether the product was harmful but rather they would take a quick look at whether the report of harm articulates a risk of harm. I write to follow up further on this issue.

On its face, the report indicates a concern about a choking hazard which suggests that the consumer believes there is a risk of harm. On Friday, you sent photos and test results that you believe are sufficient to make out a claim of material inaccuracy, i.e., that the product cannot be said to present a risk of harm because it passed the small parts test. The sweet toy heart is larger than the small parts cylinder, and you have provided test reports indicating that the product passed the small parts test. However, in assessing whether a report of harm articulates a risk of harm, the staff is not adjudicating whether the product actually presents such a risk of harm. We have other processes for making that determination which require an assessment of the risk by Commission staff, including a subject matter expert – in this case, a physiologist on the issues relating to the likelihood of a choking hazard to children. Indeed, the Commission has recalled products as a substantial product hazard where the toy was slightly larger than the small parts cylinder but, because of the shape, when swallowed, the toy presented a choking risk to children. The ultimate adjudication of whether a product presents a hazard is covered by different regulations entirely and would require an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge. As I explained on Friday, the database process is set up to allow the manufacturer to state its reasons why the report does not present a risk of harm and have that appear next to the consumer’s report. The staff handling claims of material inaccuracy will not be determining the ultimate question of whether the product does, in fact, present a risk of harm. That would only occur after a full assessment of the risk of harm by the subject matters experts and ample opportunity for the firm to address the issues with our compliance staff. The disclaimer is intended to notify users that the information has not been evaluated and specifically states: The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the contents of the Consumer Product Safety Information Database, particularly with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of information submitted by persons outside of the CPSC.

When I raised this information with the team that has been delegated the authority for making these decisions, staff concluded that the report would be posted in the database but for soft launch, and it would be up to the Firm to decide whether it wants its test reports and photos posted as comments in response to the report. The conclusion was that this is the type of report that has been included in our databases in the past and would be included in the public database along with the manufacturer’s comments and the mandatory disclaimer as to the accuracy of the information in the public database.“

For the ease of your review, I have highlighted in blue the words which I quoted in my March 9th blogpost.

Can you trust me? I have nothing to say, please judge from the facts. For those that prefer to lurk in the shadows and bash my character without being in any way accountable, please remember that the truth will out. Eventually, it may not be my character that will be the big issue of the day.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Can You Trust Me on the CPSIA Database?

CPSIA – Listening but Disagreeing – or Not Listening At All?

We know that the CPSC plunged ahead with the database on Friday despite the outcry of many industry stakeholders. Among the protesters was the National Association of Manufacturers, not exactly a lightweight organization. Industry protests fell on deaf ears. It goes without saying that the resistance of the two Republican Commissioners (who drafted their own database rule) aligned with industry objections. None of this apparently mattered.

As if to make the point that the CPSIA database will be misunderstood, misused and dangerous, the New York Times announced the arrival of the database in an article entitled “Consumer Agency to Post a Database of Unsafe Products“. Nice work, New York Times! The information in the database is unverified and in many cases will NOT be true. There is simply no way to conclude that the products referenced in the database are “unsafe”. Good luck convincing anyone of that now.

It is embittering and frustrating to be so flagrantly disregarded. There seems to be so much at stake, and the fix was seemingly so simple. No one asked to kill the database, just protect innocent businesses from damaging inaccurate postings on a website enjoying the prestige of a federal safety agency. Even the Pompeo Amendment was promoted as “hitting the pause button”. It is hard to fathom why dialogue was so impossible to start. Actually, after a few years of this war, it is not hard to fathom at all.

I know we were rejected – it is hard not to conclude we were ignored completely from the beginning.

My involvement in this issue began when I was asked to testify before the Commission on the issues relating to a searchable database of product incidents. Actually, I had been on record of objecting to the database even before the CPSIA became law (you can see excerpts of letters I sent in my response to Slate). I was called by Matt Howsare, then counsel to Inez Tenenbaum (now her Chief of Staff) who asked me to fly to Washington to testify. He told me that they “needed” me. Wanting to be helpful and to pitch in when asked by the agency (I was charmingly naive at that time), I agreed. I posted video of my testimony in this space, and as you will see, I was cut off by Ms. Tenenbaum. Get it? I was asked by her staff to present because they needed industry testimony, and when I gave my remarks, they cut me off – one suspects they had heard enough . . . .

This experience left me disgusted in a way that, frankly, hasn’t worn off.

Later, the agency called for a two-day workshop on the database. Owing to the discourtesy of my treatment at the hearing and because of their apparent utter disinterest in my views, I declined the opportunity to continue banging my head against the wall by attending their database confab. Later, as we know, the Democrats released a 248-page rule that greatly expanded the database rule from Congressional intent. Written as though edited by Consumer Federation of America, the rule produced howls of protest, but as has been the case thusfar in this CPSIA saga, it mattered not. The three Dems voted as they would have in the absence of any protests and the defective rule was adopted.

I continue to believe that the criticisms of the rule were (and remain) legitimate. That is, they were rational and reasonable, and lent themselves to reasonable and understandable resolution. The Dems did not make any effort to address these reasonable concerns, rejecting them out of hand.

This pattern of ignoring stakeholders while calling for comments and participation has been a hallmark of the Tenenbaum era. I am trying not to take it personally but wonder how we can be so consistently “wrong”. The Dems barely pause to discuss industry objections other than to simply reiterate that their policy objectives are more pressing. Are we so obviously wrong that our objections don’t merit an answer?

I have trouble reaching that conclusion. I have made the same points consistently over and over, yet I cannot put my finger on a single response to my objections other than outright rejection. There is a question of good faith here. The rejection of my company’s PROOF of a material error in the one filing made against one of our products in the soft launch of the database seems to call into question whether the agency can ever be trusted under this group of administrators. The response by SENIOR STAFF at the agency that the consumer in question had stated a “risk of harm” when his/her accusation was PLAINLY WRONG means that even the English language is being corrupted in service of the database. How can trust exist in an environment like this?

Ask around among industry stakeholders. Trust is GONE. No one trusts the CPSC these days.

Looking back on the database saga, it makes me all the more certain that I am doing the right thing pushing back against these people. They are not operating in good faith and have no apparent concern for the well-being of our company, our employees or the countless companies, schools, families and children who depend on us. This cancer on our markets must be stopped. We have another election coming up and I will be working hard to put more Democrats OUT OF WORK. They have no one to blame but themselves. They won’t listen . . . .

So we need to get rid of them.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Listening but Disagreeing – or Not Listening At All?

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 »