CPSIA – AAP, Get a Calculator!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guess!

Consider what the EPA said about its new regulations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounding like administrators from another planet, the EPA continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what did the EPA actually do?

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

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

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

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

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

CPSIA – 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?

Next Page »