CPSIA – Sound Bite Justice

Today the CPSC Commission voted 3-2 to impose the 100 ppm lead standard retroactively as of August 14, 2011 , having concluded that there are no materials or products that the CPSC staff could identify for which this level of lead is not “technologically feasible”.  This vote has been long predicted and anticipated.  The entire meeting was conducted in a thoroughly partisan manner, with sharp dividing lines between Dems and Republicans.  What-a-shock.  I experienced a range of emotions watching this two-hour hearing.  None of them were surprise.  I experienced some boredom, as the debate was so predictable and so repetitive of past meetings.  Many self-serving remarks by the Dem zealots.  I experienced a mild sense of hopelessness, as it is clear that the Dems are unreachable. I experienced rising exasperation over their refusal to listen or consider data – unless it agrees with pre-existing agendas and alliances.  It is hard to not feel you are appearing before the Hanging Judge.  I won’t attempt to analyze what was really going on today, you already know it.  The posturing was sickening among the Dems.  That said, you deserve some flavor of the event.  Here are a few tidbits for your amusement or annoyance: She’s just the nicest! Inez Tenenbaum explained that the 100 ppm standard would have gone into effect if the CPSC had not chosen to decide the question of “technological feasibility”.  As she sees it, ” this [decision] is a courtesy to people .” What, Boeing isn’t covered by the CPSIA?! After vigorously stating her case on the cost-benefit analysis of this rule and condemning the possible adoption of this rule as a violation of the recent Executive Order applicable to the CPSC, Ms. Nord restates the obvious. Unfortunately, the power of her logic was lost on at least three of her colleagues by my estimate:  ” Just because a material is out there for a jet plane, doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate for a toy plane .”  No! Is that a promise, Bob? Defending caveman logic to his followers, Bob Adler rebuffed the Executive Order argument and the order of the person who appointed him to his post:  ” This is not a new Executive Order . . . . [They] said could you at least do a plan for economic analysis and I do think that we are planning on doing that and we have done that in the past. It says “to the extent permitted by law” we should do cost-benefit analysis. And I just wanted to say over my dead body would I agree to do the kind of cost-benefit analysis that is contained in Section 9 of the [CPSA]. That is paralysis by analysis. If you look at the data . . . nine [CPSC] standards in 30 years using those procedures. I am not against cost-benefit analysis; I am definitely against the kind of cost-benefit analysis that’s contained in our statute. Section 101 does not EXPLICITLY bar a cost-benefit analysis but it effectively does so .”  [Emphasis added] I find this rather interesting as he challenged me on February 16 with the question of whether I recommended that he violate the law.  It was a tense moment – he was trying to corner me into telling him to spurn his Congressional mandate.  Nevertheless, it is appears that Bob can pick and choose which laws bind him and which do not.  That shouldn’t surprise anyone who went to law school.  Law school profs always know the right answer, even if it makes no sense to anyone but themselves.  They care sooooo much, they really feel our pain . . . . Ms. Tenenbaum set the records straight on the purity of her good intentions:  ” I so believe that we have been diligent in looking at the marketplace and surveying materials. We have admitted it would be an extra cost to some companies and been out front. But, again, ‘technological feasibility’ the definition is not ‘economic feasibility’. Not that I don’t sympathize with small business owners and that is why we have worked on other rules [like the component part rule]. We are trying to be as flexible as possible and work with small businesses and the industry to accomplish what Congress mandated for us to do .” I know it’s just a detail but in the last three years, what exactly has this “effort” achieved?  Oh yeah, I forgot about Neal Cohen – we can cry on his shoulder!  In fact, Ms. T. closed the event with the offer that Cohen has his box of Kleenex ready for you whenever you need him. Somebody’s getting the shaft, let the record reflect. Nancy Nord noticed something the Dems must have missed:  ” You know, one of the things that is of concern to me is that the penultimate recommendation from the staff here is that ‘complying materials APPEAR to be commercially available for most products.’ Listen to the hedge words there in the staff recommendation. They ‘appear to be’? Well, let’s find out for sure and let’s do it on a product category basis. ‘Most products’? Well, what about the ones that can’t meet it? That’s our responsibility as [regulators], colleagues .” Hmmm.  Professor Adler grades the final exam. Bob Adler was in top form today.  The “over my dead body” remark was just an appetizer.  He went on to inform us that comment letters which arrive late are not operative, especially if they did not properly read his mind on what he wanted to see: ” I do want to also comment on some of the last minute submissions we got from our friends in industry, and I always appreciate those comments and I do consider a lot of these folks to be good friends both of this agency and of mine. But it’s really hard to take it seriously when it comes in at the penultimate or ultimate moment when you’ve had a lot of time to get that kind of information to us . . . . [Recites all the opportunities to comment prior to this hearing.] All of that, if you want to make a point, would have been very helpful especially we’d had the kind of hard quantitative data that SGS and the Hong Kong-American Chamber of Commerce gave us. And I’m going to just make a brief comment = you’re free to do it, it’s not helpful to tell us we’ve read the law incorrectly. I think we’ve read it correctly. I don’t think it’s helpful just to tell us that it’s going to be difficult and more expensive to get compliant materials. I think we know that, I think the staff told us that. What we needed was more hard data demonstrating the points that you’re making because what we really got were a lot of conclusory assertions when what we really needed was some hard quantitative data. And all the hard quantitative data I’ve seen really points in the opposite direction. So I really appreciate all the last minute comments. Too little, too late as far as I am concerned .”  [Emphasis added] This lecture was repeated three times by Mr. Adler unprompted, for reasons best understood by him.  Interestingly, Mr. Adler seems to have forgotten that I presented hard quantitative data on this same topic in my timely-filed 100 ppm comment letter and in my Febuary 16 testimony.  Of course, it did not agree with the SGS or HKACC submissions.  I guess since he found their data useful, mine must have been wrong.  According to his remarks today, I didn’t even submit it, which is rather surprising since it was discussed extensively in the Staff report :  “Learning Resources reported 98.3 percent compliance with the 100 ppm standard for its products, but found this compliance level to be unacceptable because of the difficulty in identifying where the noncomplying components would turn up.” Bob Adler flips his flop. You would think with three repetitions of his condescending lecture on late submissions, that Professor Adler must mean it.  Can’t get a good grade in his class with that behavior, right?  Well, maybe not for the teacher’s pet:  ” One very quick point, well two. One is that the [AAP] study you shared with us, and again thank you so much Commissioner Northup, is a 2005 study. We got a letter last night from the American Academy of Pediatrics reiterating their support for moving down to these levels. . . . ” Bob Adler wings it. . . . In the face of a vigorous attack by a well-prepared Anne Northup on the shoddy scientific data presented by the AAP supporting the “no safe level of lead” assertion, Mr. Adler lapses into hyperbole and fantastic assertions incapable of validation: “It isn’t just the [AAP]. A lot of what they’ve done has been drawn from research done around the world on the effects of lead. I’ll bet there must be ten thousand, I know there are thousands and thousands of studies on lead, all of which point to the very severe toxic effects associated with [these products] .” Mother knows best! In a truly shocking display of personal preference substituting for appropriate policy and regulation, Ms. Tenenbaum decided that we don’t need recycled materials in children’s products because who would want them anyway?  ” The scientific community has shown us over and over again that lead is cumulative and so I think there are safety benefits in reducing the exposure to lead and the accumulation of lead in the body. Also, I don’t know that parents are interested in having products that their children use, particularly infants and young children, that are mouthable being made of recycled materials, recycled materials that may contain a higher level of lead. Recycled plastic – do you want your child to have a recycled pacifier? Well, that is why Congress has set these strict limits.” [Full disclosure, we recently won a toy industry award for environmentally-friendly toys made of recycled plastic.  No one has objected to them to my knowledge, and believe me, they are wonderfully and thoroughly tested for compliance.] And the support for Ms. T’s bald assertion is . . . what?  Did she find something in the legislative record?  Is there some verbiage in the law?  I have not heard this previously from anyone at the CPSC but notably I have repeatedly noted that the CPSIA will be the death of recycled materials in children’s products .  Still, Ms. T’s logic is irresistible – she is there to figure these things out for us and certainly knows best.  After all, she loves children, probably much more than any of us. She cares.  What else do you need to know?  With her power to impose policy, her preferences will become our marketplace.  Brave New World, courtesy of the Nanny Staters. Tenenbaum says you can ALWAYS file for an exemption! Ms. T. reminded the audience at least four times that if they wanted to, they could ALWAYS file for an exemption if they can prove their product or material can’t be made to the new standard subject to the non-economic technological feasibility test.  The door is always open . . . . This promise seems to be in denial of reality.  Let’s start with the fact that the CPSC staff studied this question for more than a year and concluded, as summarized in a 59-page tome, that EVERYTHING is technologically feasible.  That seems to put us all against the wall when it comes to exemption petitions.  And then there’s the fact that for three years, nobody has been able to get an exemption for anything, regardless of how obvious the case, unthreatening the use or how well-funded the supplicant. Notes Ms. Northup:  ” I just think we should warn the public that it is unlikely that any petition would be accepted and that that is, first of all, for anybody to file it would be far more costly than to just pay for the materials and increase the cost of their products in all likelihood, not to mention the delay they would have in us in actually addressing their petition .” And Nancy Nord speculates that petitions for relief are highly unlikely in any event:  ” I will just tell you, in my conversations with folks out there, there is a feeling that ‘why bother?’ There is a comment weariness, there is a sense that it isn’t worth the candle, and so I guess if you’re not a company that’s either been put out of business or not making the product, you don’t have the money to hire the lawyer to file the petition. So I think that’s just an empty option for most people .” Who do you believe?  Hey, as Ms. T says, the door’s always open even if it’s the door to oblivion. The outcome of the decision to implement the 100 ppm standard was foretold but let’s not forget something important – this is a retroactive rule as implemented today .  Unless Congress acts, we are all in the soup.  Even worse than before.  Call your Congressman and don’t stop until they take action.  Mr. Obama must sign something by August 14 or all hell breaks out . . . again.

See the original article here:
CPSIA – Sound Bite Justice

CPSIA – 100 ppm Vote – What They Knew and When They Knew it

What did they know and when did they know it?  The vote on 100 ppm is going on this AM, so it’s too late to do anything about the projected 3-2 vote implementing this pointless and self-destructive provision of the CPSIA.  From my perspective, having investing time and money in trying to stop this train wreck, it has been a long time since there was anything we could do about it.  It’s not our country. I have written about this provision endlessly in this space. I thought I would just put up a couple bits of info previously disclosed here for perspective on the vote. The 100 ppm lead limit vote is a vote of conscience.   The Commission knows what they are about to unleash.  I told them in no uncertain terms during my February 16th testimony : From the CPSC Staff analysis of 100 ppm : “[While] staff does not have data on potential lead exposure from products that have lead content less than 300 ppm, but more than 100 ppm, staff expects that the overall contribution of such products to lead exposure in children is minimal.” “Staff has found no intentional uses of lead in materials at concentrations at or near any of the three statutory lead limits (i.e., 100 ppm, 300 ppm, or 600 ppm). . . . Without the intentional use of lead in materials or the use of certain recycled materials, the lead content of most materials is substantially below the mandated limits.” Notably, NO consumer group has responded to my call or Congress’ call for the identities of previous victims of the “hazard” that the CPSC purports to regulate.  With no victims identified EVER ANYWHERE , the claims of benefits from this provision are spurious at best. What is the EPA’s opinion on lead in dirt ?   400 ppm in play yards and 1200 ppm elsewhere is just fine.  No word yet whether G-d, the manufacturer of dirt, has to provide comprehensive testing for compliance. What is the economic impact of this change?   The CPSC did not do a cost-benefit analysis as Obama’s Executive Order requires now, but only provided “Economic Information” (cost only, no benefit analysis): “[Bringing] products that do not currently comply with the 100 ppm limit into conformance is generally expected to result in increased manufacturing costs. . . . [Manufacturers] of children’s bicycles experienced a 20 to 25 percent increase in the costs of metallic components when the lead content limits were reduced from 600 ppm to 300 ppm. . . . Learning Resources, Inc., a manufacturer of educational materials and learning toys, said it expects a 10 to 20 percent increase in the cost of producing finished goods when the lead content limit is reduced to 100 ppm. . . . testing costs may rise . . . . Because there are limits to the reduction in profits that firms are willing and able to accept, some manufacturers are likely to reduce their selection of children’s products or exit the children’s market altogether. Some manufacturers may even go out of business. . . .” “The higher costs associated with metal components will probably result in some efforts to substitute lower cost materials. Plastics, for example, might be substituted for metal parts in some products. Some of these types of substitutions may affect the utility of the children’s products. . . . Additionally, and as noted in comments from the Handmade Toy Alliance and the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association, it is likely that the costs will have relatively greater consequences for smaller manufacturers and artisans, who have less bargaining power with components suppliers, fewer technical resources, smaller production runs to spread testing costs over, and smaller product lines.. . . ,There appear to be few readily available options for mitigating the costs associated with the 100 ppm content limit. . . .” Mr. Obama’s Executive Order requires the agency to make actual cost-benefit assessments of this change in law now.   I made the same call on February 16, 2011 during my testimony on 100 ppm: You can find numerous other clips from the 100 ppm hearing in posts in this space in late February or on YouTube.  You can also read my comment letter on 100 ppm.

Read the article:
CPSIA – 100 ppm Vote – What They Knew and When They Knew it

CPSIA – The Axis of Misinformation

CPSC Spokesman Scott Wolfson wants you to read an article: Scott_Wolfson: If #opengov #gov20 are important to u, pls read this LATimes column: http://t.co/MrrgGwO #SaferProducts.gov #cpsc  [From Scott Wolfson's Twitter feed] Wolfson refers you to a hatchet job by David Lazarus of the LA Times  on the CPSIA Product Database. I have taken issue with the blather emitted from Lazarus’ PC in the past.  In his latest example of irresponsible journalism, endorsed by the CPSC, Lazarus displays his studied ignorance of the issues relating to the database. His lack of research certainly didn’t prevent him from making declarative statements. Wolfson wanted to be sure you didn’t miss it. Lazarus ponders what the issues could possibly be with the controversial database:  ” You’ve got to wonder why businesses are fighting so hard to keep this resource away from consumers. Is it because their fears are justified that we’ll misuse this tool (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding)? Or is it because the last thing they want is a consuming public armed with the latest and most thorough information on the safety of their goods? And if it’s the latter, you might now ask, what are they trying to hide? ” I cannot think of any objections to the database other than self-interest, can you?  It’s all a conspiracy, as anyone on the Left can tell you.  Businesses have so much to hide!  And did you know that evil billionaires are against the database?  Lazarus sorts it all out:  “Koch Industries — run by billionaires Charles and David Koch, who are active in conservative causes — also reported spending more than $200,000 lobbying against creation of the database.”  Lazarus asserts that it is significant that Members of Congress aligned against the database also received campaign contributions from businesses.  [Can you find a single member of Congress who has NOT taken contributions from businesses or business people?  Just curious.]  Lazarus notes that both Reps. Emerson and Pompeo received contributions from business people who are ALSO against the database.  It’s all making sense now . . . . Perhaps it was an oversight, but Lazarus fails to mention that the folks on the Left who so vigorously defend the database as implemented have been richly financed by TRIAL LAWYERS.  Rep. Henry Waxman raised more than $165,000 in 2010 from lawyers (11% of his total raise).  In fact, his top PAC contributor was the American Association for Justice , a group of plaintiff’s attorneys actively opposing tort reform.  He also received individual contributions from AAJ lobbyists .  Rep. Jan Schakowsky raised a mere $224,000 from lawyers in 2010 (about 15% of her raise).  Ditto for AAJ support.  Poke around on OpenSecrets.org to check out your other favorites in Congress.  It goes without saying that the support Waxman, Schakowsky and their ilk lavish on the database has NOTHING to do with campaign contributions by trial lawyers.   It all comes from the heart, cloaked in white.  Any idea who pays the bill for all the litigation initiated by the AAJ and its members?  Hint:  it’s not Waxmn or Schakowsky. No Lazarus article would be complete without the quotes of Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America.  The strangely influential Weintraub is the Left’s favorite mouthpiece on the CPSIA.  Here she tries a new angle to preserve the database, the “sunk cost” argument:  “The thing that’s so insidious is that the database is already up and running,  This would basically waste all the money and resources that have gone into creating the database.”  Insidious! That thrifty Rachel, she literally weeps over government waste.  Of course, the database is not controversial simply because it exists; the principal reason the issue lingers on is that Lefties like Weintraub and Bob Adler insisted on unfair administrative procedures that create unreasonable risks for manufacturers unrelated to actual product hazards, like brand slander, misidentified products, lack of accountability by complaint filers, manipulation of civil disputes and unbalanced data creating misleading commercial impressions. These problems are well-documented but have apparently escaped Lazarus’ beady-eyed (in)attention. The Axis of Misinformation is at work here.  You have the ignorant journalist (perhaps intentionally so or at a minimum, biased against manufacturers and disinterested in their POV), the shrill consumer “advocate” and the self-serving agency spokesman whose job is to manipulate how we feel about the CPSC (irrespective of reality or the “truth”).  CPSC as PR agency is offensive to me.  That’s not its function and besides, I think it’s dangerous to me as a consumer.  As a practitioner noted this week in private correspondence:  ” CPSC stacks the deck by creating alarming recall notices that do not really put hazards in perspective for readers, nor does the agency give consumers enough information to determine whether the amounts that they wind up indirectly paying for the costs of recalls are justified, especially when those costs are spread out to affect products that have not been recalled and present no risk. Hazards and risks are generally overstated, and you will never see any mention of costs to the public even though, as we all know, there is, after all, no free lunch .” It is worth noting that I hear complaints from the CPSC through various channels when they object to the portrayals in this space.  It’s so unfair that we have freedom of speech in this country.  No doubt that makes the job of regulating all of us idiots so much more difficult.  Still, if I get to exercise my freedom of speech, so does Wolfson.  Go ahead and read Lazarus.  It is informative in a way.  It will take you less than 30 seconds to recognize the shoddy journalism and the slanted, biased presentation of a one-sided story.  Consider the source of this lead – Scott Wolfson and the CPSC.  As I said, it’s informative.

View post:
CPSIA – The Axis of Misinformation

CPSIA – Functional Purpose Exception Is All About Dollars Now

The purported Functional Purpose Exception in the last draft of ECADA is unavailable to all but the largest and most well-funded of corporate supplicants.  Is it even THAT good? Let’s start with the premise that the holding by the CPSC Staff that it is “technologically feasible” to make everything without lead at 100 ppm concentrations.  In other words, in CPSIA-speak, it is ”possible” to make EVERYTHING without lead.  As noted previously many times, the term “technological feasibility” does not incorporate any concept of money or economics.  It simply signifies that it is possible in the real world to do it, damn the cost. Thus, the functional purpose exception is intended for products, components or materials that are either not possible to make without lead at compliant levels (not “technologically feasible”) or if possible, are unreasonably expensive or disruptive to make (“not practicable”).  In other words, the functional purpose test boils down to this:  ”not possible to make” or “possible to make but too expensive”.  As previously noted, this is further limited to items REQUIRING the inclusion of lead.  These items are quite limited, generally they are metals only.  You’ll never see the law reflect this metals limitation honestly because the Dems want to fool you into thinking this provision is something much more than it is. They don’t want you to know it’s not really for you. The retort to my argument yesterday is that this exception will be a boon for everyone because you can use evidence from prior hearings (paid for by preceding supplicants) to prove your case.  But since EVERYTHING can be made without lead according to CPSC Staff, the evidence of preceding supplicants is much less likely to be helpful or even available to you.  Why?  Because evidence dealing with technological feasibility is a settled question now.  There is no need for further evidence so all those expensive consultant reports are moot.  The only evidence of prior supplicants that would be useful must  reflect on the question of “practicability”.  How likely is it that you can use other people’s data on practicability? The pending draft reads as follows:  “In demonstrating that it meets the requirements of subparagraph (A), a party seeking an exception under such subparagraph may rely on any nonproprietary information submitted by any other party seeking such an exception and such information shall be considered part of the record presented by the party that relies on that information.”  [Emphasis added]  In other words, you can only rely on non-proprietary evidence of others reflecting on practicability.  Of this, there will be none. The issue of “practicability” is essentially one of having to take steps that are unreasonably burdensome in economic terms.  Each competitor in a marketplace has a different cost structure and sets different profit margins. This is very confidential and highly proprietary information.  Sources are confidential, manufacturing processes and innovations are usually trade secrets. All these secrets provide competitive advantage and will not be disclosed publicly. Furthermore, the disclosure of such information could devastate the market for the product, once profit margins or technical manufacturing data are disclosed to customers and resellers.  No one will disclose this information except under seal.  Many people won’t even take that step, distrusting the sanctity of their most precious information assets once it is out of their control.  So there won’t be any non-proprietary information to share or use.  Besides, each case will be different.  In reality, the case for Kawasaki to use lead in its ATV engine blocks will be different from the case of Arctic Cat ATVs because their manufacturing processes, cost levels, manufacturing location(s), market position and so on are different.  Deciding practicability for one manufacturer sheds no light on another manufacturer because the entire question is one of economics.  Let’s not forget, practicability will be determined not by whether ANY additional costs are imposed, but instead by whether the new costs are unreasonable AND unbearable.  That will vary in case by case, market by market. No doubt extraneous subjective factors like the Dems’ paranoia about lead will make for inconsistent judgments of what constitutes an unreasonable burden.  After all, there’s no safe level of lead!  Nothing will extend from one case to another.  Nothing at all. It is not surprising that this confusion lingers.  The original concept of the functional purpose exception (a lame idea from the get-go) was focused on the question of technological feasibility.  The ability to use other people’s submitted consultant reports had some value in that case.  But since that question is now resolved, so the value of sharing the reports is gone.  All that’s left is the taste in everyone’s mouth. Where does this leave us?  With no exceptions to the CPSIA, none, zippo, nada, nuthin’.   You can thank the ever-intransigent Dems for this terrible situation.  The functional purpose exception should be DROPPED and replaced with something actually useful to real businesses, before we all expire.  The House Energy and Commerce Committee needs to ask:  Who are we trying to benefit?  What problem are we trying to solve? How will the new provision solve that problem? Who will be the beneficiaries of that solution?  [In the real world] Do we like the order in which relief is likely to be doled out?  Is it okay to design a provision such that only big companies can get relief in practical effect, or one in which big companies must be granted relief first ? How much will the process cost?  How risky is the investment in applying for relief?  Is the application for relief essentially automatic, or will it be a case-by-case trial in front of the Commission? How burdensome will the application process be?  Is the exemption intended to benefit companies with small high-value product lines of 5-15 products (e.g., ATV manufacturers), or companies with broad product lines (e.g., science educational suppliers can carry many thousands of items)? Let’s get real about the relief we are purportedly offering.  Something good and useful can be crafted but not if it must followed the form of the useless functional purpose exception.  Please, Congress, don’t play games – write a provision that speaks clearly and honestly about who will benefit and how.  After three years of this, we deserve at least something clear and understandable.

See original article:
CPSIA – Functional Purpose Exception Is All About Dollars Now

CPSIA – Do Accidents Happen?

Accidents happen . It’s an old saying. Once upon a time acts of fate were no one’s fault and we each bore the risk individually. Today, things seem different – when bad things happen, the search begins for someone to blame. The media and politicians feed this trend in hysterical tones (they profit by doing so). Individual responsibility is passé. In the case of children’s products today, blame is often laid at the feet of the product or its manufacturer by the CPSC. In some cases, the fault is clear (the hazard is “substantial”); in other cases, it’s not nearly as clear. In this article, I am only interested in those more ambiguous cases where there is an element of fate or other factors outside the control of the manufacturer. Should we be satisfied with how the CPSC draws the line? CPSC as Allocator The CPSC’s assignment of responsibility for injuries (in the form of recalls) is an inherently “legal” process. Our laws allocate risk and responsibility in society in the form of rights. About 75 years ago, legal theorists developed a field of inquiry known as “ law and economics ” which held that legal systems incorporate economic principles which ensure efficient allocation of resources and promote economic activity. “Rights” are essentially factors of production in economic terms. Ronald Coase of the University of Chicago Law School won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1991 for his seminal work on law and economics over the preceding 50+ years. Notably, Obama regulations “czar” Cass Sunstein is an ex-University of Chicago Law School law professor, as is President Obama himself.  Sunstein is closely associated with the study of law and economics . The issues confronting the CPSC over injuries to children are not emotional in nature at all. They are actually purely economic issues because the CPSC is a market regulator. It is an objective fact that injuries to children or other consumers are a cost we bear in exchange for the benefits of economic activity (availability of innovative manufactured products, the provision of jobs, etc.). Naturally, as a community we want to bear as few such costs as is efficient, again to promote growth, hence a societal interest in reducing injuries. The interest in reducing injuries is economic, however; we are not indifferent to cost and judge them in light of corresponding benefits. For instance, this explains why you do not wear a crash helmet on the way to work despite your awareness that fatal auto accidents happen every day. The costs outweigh the benefits. As a regulator, the agency brokers costs among a large group of parties. Consumer costs related to injury (including emotional loss and lost income, among other things) are weighed against manufacturer and market costs (recall costs, damage to brands, decreased growth, lost jobs, etc.). Whether the CPSC does the math properly or not, their decisions allocate resources by directing that one party incur costs to protect other parties from incurring costs. These decisions are purely economic even if stated in emotional terms. It is therefore clear that CPSC regulators have the capacity to promote economic growth or stifle it. Is the Goal “No Injuries” Ever? The CPSC has a legal responsibility to differentiate between a product hazard that causes accidents and accidents caused by the hand of fate. Congress limited the authority of the agency to regulate only those product hazards deemed “substantial” (a term of art under the CPSA and FHSA). As stated here many times previously, I believe the CPSC under current leadership regularly exceeds its legislative authority in this regard. The CPSC acts as though its role is to move society toward a Utopian ideal in which children are never injured or die prematurely. While I certainly don’t endorse injuries to children, the Utopian ideal of injury-free childhoods is illusory. In fact, an injury-free childhood could only be achieved at a very high cost. If the CPSC attaches an almost infinite value to preventing injuries, their allocation decisions will always constitute a transfer (a tax) and cause economic inefficiency (depress economic activity). This over-appraisal of the cost and consequence of childhood injury is illustrated by recent remarks of Chairman Inez Tenenbaum about a recall of one million pool drain covers. Ms. Tenenbaum appears to justify the recall on the possibility of injury despite media reports confirming that no deaths had occurred since 2009: “I want to make it clear that this recall announcement does not mean that one million drain covers will need to be replaced or repaired. The recalled covers were marked with the wrong flow rating . . . . Now for those public pools and spas that need their covers replaced or fixed, I have an obligation to advise that those facilities be closed at this time. They should reopen as soon as the work is completed that addresses the recall and brings the facility into compliance with the law. I know this is a very difficult message for many communities to hear so close to Memorial Day weekend, but we cannot risk a child becoming entrapped in a recalled drain cover .” [Emphasis added] This unstated policy attaching infinite value to childhood injury is much more than a strict liability standard because the CPSC only acts after an assessment of fault (rather than simply assigning responsibility). Isn’t the agency saying that the actions or inactions of manufacturers cause accidents? Recent Recalls Allocate Uncontrollable Costs to Manufacturers Consider some recent recalls for perspective: a. Big Lots recalls bunk beds recalled after a three-year-old child died when caught under a futon. b. Maclaren recalls one million strollers sold over 11 years because of more than a dozen fingertip amputations caused by a hinge. c. Mattel recalls more than 7,000,000 children’s trikes sold over 14 years because of genital injuries to ten young girls jumping on the trike. While it may be hard to look past these sometimes grisly childhood injuries, each of these cases calls into question whether the injuries were really the fault of the manufacturer. It’s not worth defending the product designs – let’s concede that in retrospect the products could have been better designed. Parental supervision appears to be an issue in each case. Manufacturers are typically unwilling to resist CPSC recalls by blaming consumers for injuries incurred using its products. That route is very risky and may in fact be more costly than going along with the CPSC’s dictates. As a result, the record in these cases is usually very one-sided – the CPSC has the first and last word on the subject, often on TV. Why would anyone stand up for these companies in public? There’s no incentive to do so; after all, the costs are paid by only one party, and that party isn’t talking. There is a fundamental error in routinely blaming manufacturers for accidents or fate. It is widely accepted that laws operate efficiently when they allocate responsibility for risk to the party in the best position to address the risk. Manufacturers can efficiently bear many such costs – but not all. For instance, product safety is best assigned to manufacturers rather than consumers. This is fairly obvious – manufacturers know their own products better than consumers do and are best able to take steps to keep products safe at the lowest possible cost (most efficient). This is the reason why the common law tort system assigns product liability costs to manufacturers. So who is in the best position to control costs associated with accidents or fate? Risks associated with acts of fate are difficult to control.  In fact, many foreseeable risks leading to childhood injuries are completely outside the control of manufacturers: 1. Fate 2. Failures of adult supervision 3. Product abuse or misuse 4. Mental deficiencies or mental illness (e.g., pica) 5. Risks well-known to the user (e.g., knives are sharp). I would advance that good adult supervision is the lowest cost way to prevent accidents with children’s products. There are significant limitations to what a manufacturer can achieve on behalf of consumers who don’t adequately supervise their children. Of course, drawing the line is a big issue here. But can’t an argument be made that adult supervision of the toddlers using the Mattel trike could have prevented foreseeable injuries from jumping on the trike? That a parent must carefully supervise the location of a child’s hands before closing a stroller? This is a simple point – manufacturers cannot control these factors from their offices or warehouses. The cost for a manufacturer to do so would be excessive. Some people might argue that assigning blame for matters of fate to manufacturers of consumer products is a neat way to efficiently spread cost among the community. Why not make the manufacturer pay the uncontrollable cost of fate relating to their products, and let them pass the costs along to consumers in the form of higher prices? Manufacturers can be converted into involuntary insurers by public policy, risk intermediaries for events of misfortune. The appeal is irresistible; after all, it doesn’t cost tax dollars to pay for these losses if we force responsibility on manufacturers. Of course, if you are a careful consumer, you might resent paying more to subsidize free-riding consumers who don’t take appropriate precautions.  But money aside, doesn’t it reflect a hardening of our society if if we ignore heart tugs when kids are injured? Is this heartless . . . or sensible? Is the CPSC doing the American public a favor by increasingly pushing responsibility for uncontrollable risks to manufacturers? The Important Role of Economic Efficiency in Laws Governing Children’s Products I believe bad things do sometimes happen to good people. What is the economic effect of assigning these costs to manufacturers by default? Unfortunately, this invariable result is not economically efficient and will have the effect of a tax on the children’s market. In other words, the economic incentive to participate in markets will shrivel as manufacturer returns on investment decline because of legal risks (costs) they cannot control. This is basic stuff, folks – the reduced economic incentive causes market participants to withdraw, just as high taxes cause people to stop taking risks (trading). Ronald Coase addressed this subject in two articles that led to his Nobel Prize. In a 1937 paper on the nature of the firm , Coase articulated what became known as the Coase Theorem which holds that if trade in an externality is possible (in this case, childhood injuries) and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. Translated into English and applied to the facts here, Coase theorized that it would not matter which party was responsible to pay the costs of an injury (victim or tortfeasor) if there was no cost to bargaining between the parties. This of course is not the case in the real world. Coase returned to the subject in a 1960 article entitled “ The Problem of Social Cost ” and explored the role of regulations in achieving economic efficiency when economic activity creates social costs. This eminently readable article is a foundation stone of modern legal theory. Considering the social costs of human activity (such as pollution or injuries from the use of children’s products), Coase concluded that efficient allocation of resources would be achieved regardless of allocation of rights relating to social costs (responsibility to pay those costs) provided that trading can be conducted without transaction costs. In other words, in an efficient market, economic factors (resources) will always be put to their highest and best use through allocation of resources and bargaining. Through bargaining in an efficient market, the party with the most productive use of economic factors will ultimately possess the resources, thus ensuring compensation for social costs regardless of who has been assigned legal rights. Coase cites numerous examples (including torts) in making this point. Coase notes the symmetry of these disputes in his analysis. When cattle overrun crops causing economic losses, there would be no damage without the cattle, and likewise no damage without the crops! Causation is not black-and-white to an economist interested in efficient outcomes. As he notes, a smoothly operating pricing system ensures that “the fall in the value of production due to the harmful effects would be a cost for both parties.” Nevertheless, Coase recognized that there ARE transaction costs in the real world (e.g., legal expenses, bargaining holdouts, etc.). These costs of altering and recombining rights allocated by the legal system can interfere with the ability to bargain and thus prevent the efficient allocation of resources in the market. He argued therefore that regulations are justified to the extent they allocate rights to the most efficient risk-bearer. Regulations can supersede market transactions by imposing the most efficient outcome. This is presumably the underpinning of President Obama’s call for more federal regulation. According to him, this will be good for us.  Coase might demur, noting that it all depends on the facts as we shall see below. Coase was realistic in his assessment of the inherent dangers of regulation: “But the governmental machine is not itself costless. It can, in fact, on occasion be extremely costly. Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that the restrictive and zoning regulations, made by a fallible administration subject to political pressures and operating without any competitive check, will necessarily always be those which increase the efficiency with which the economic system operates. Furthermore, such general regulations which must apply to a wide variety of cases will be enforced in some cases in which they are clearly inappropriate. . . . It is my belief that economists, and policy-makers generally, have tended to over-estimate the advantages that come from government regulation.” Coase’s solution: perform a cost-benefit analysis to make sure that regulations increase economic output (the all-in costs must be less than the all-in benefits when reduced to dollars). We encounter situations regularly in which the party causing a legal nuisance does not bear the consequential costs. For instance, a home remodeler does not have to pay compensation to neighbors for noise and debris that may adversely affect them. He may feel a social obligation to give them freshly-baked cookies but is under no legal obligation to do so. This is one of many legalized nuisances. Why is this the legal rule? The allocation of rights takes into account that as a society, we want to encourage investment and capital improvements. The small cost of dealing with these inconveniences is considered a cost we all should bear in exchange for the benefits received from the economic activity. This rule does not apply to exceptional cases of nuisance where the costs outweigh the benefits. Not every instance of damage is remediable under our legal system for good reason. Coase cites a fascinating real world example of this rule carried to a surprising extreme: under traditional English law, railroads are protected from liability for fires caused by sparks from their engines. Coase devotes considerable ink to prove that this legal rule creates an efficient allocation of resources (a positive effect for society) notwithstanding that there are “winners” and “losers”. This result would be very difficult to achieve through bargaining. Clearly a railroad would have a very difficult time working out a deal with every landowner along its lines as a precondition to laying down track. Importantly, Coase points out that the opposite rule (where the railroad must pay for the fires its engines cause) does much more than just transfer liability. It also shifts incentives to everyone’s detriment. A farmer along the track now can gamble with the railroad’s money – he can get a market price from market buyers if he can harvest his crops or from the railroad if there is a fire. The farmer’s return is thus guaranteed, the incentive to take care is removed, and he will be rewarded for planting crops likely to be burned. This alternative rule’s transfer of costs to the railroad will simultaneously reduce tje potential reward for constructing tracks and likely result in fewer train lines, reducing the broadly-distributed economic benefits that come with the expansion of the rail system. In other words, shifting liability in this case makes everyone along the train line poorer. Coase notes that “nuisances” are not always against our interest: “[Pigou] is wrong when he describes these actions as ‘anti-social’. They may or may not be. It is necessary to weigh the harm against the good that will result. NOTHING COULD BE MORE ‘ANTI-SOCIAL’ THAN TO OPPOSE ANY ACTION WHICH CAUSES ANY HARM TO ANYONE.” [Emphasis added] CPSC, are you listening? Placing the cost for nuisances on the producers’ shoulders may be well-intentioned but it is not necessarily the right result because it does not provide any incentive to consumers to take steps to prevent injury. “A tax system which was confined to a tax on the producer for damage caused would tend to lead to unduly high costs being incurred for the prevention of damage.”  The CPSC’s tendency to blame products via recalls and bans is the equivalent of a tax in this case. The “unduly high costs” leads to a reduction or suspension of economic activity. We can observe this in the children’s market over the past three years – the agency and Congress have both received considerable testimony on this topic (and seemingly ignored it). Coase won the Nobel Prize for pointing out that regulators often neglect to look at the full economic picture and thus fail to achieve optimal social results. It goes without saying that the regulators may nevertheless achieve optimal newspaper headlines. Conclusion Why is it inefficient to invariably push costs to manufacturers for injuries associated with children’s products? As Prof. Coase notes, in a raucous marketplace, transaction costs can distort the allocation of resources. In this case, the prospect of liability and uncontrollable losses are a high transaction cost that affects the efficient allocation of resources by trade. Coase posits that a cost-benefit analysis must be performed to make sure that efficiency is achieved. The rule for such analyses is quite clear – the all-in cost of the regulation must be less than the all-in economic benefits achieved. The best way to understand the formula in this case is to look at all marginal children’s recalls as a class. Let’s agree that there actually are some “substantial” product hazards out there and exclude them from our analysis.  [Manufacturers are in the best position to evaluate and prevent "substantial" hazards on behalf of consumers.]  We must also assess all the money spent as a result of CPSC action as a group. It does not matter who spends the money – we want to tote up all the costs and lay them off against all the benefits. The benefits are easy to calculate – there is an economic value to a life and also to injuries. This type of analysis is not only common, it is a requirement of federal law (as a result of Coase’s work outlined above). The government has tables of these values . Likewise, the costs are pretty easy to tote up: out of pocket costs for the recall, replacement of inventory, damage to reputation and brand, legal and regulatory costs, lost jobs, reduced investment, etc. In the case of accidents or other uncontrollable factors leading to injury, the CPSC’s calculus is defective. It is quite telling that the regulators are not interested in my point that no victims have been identified. Lead-in-substrate victims – NONE. Phthalates victims – NONE. The ledger on the benefits side is undocumented, vague and untested, but the regulators’ indifference suggests that they place an almost infinite value on injury or even the possibility of injury. On the cost side, the regulator also seems to largely ignore the impact on markets. As noted by Coase, the regulators are not subject to competitive pressures so they can easily overlook these costs. The math does not add up, and as a result, their decisions inevitably will choke the market. The CPSC acts as though not subject to the laws of economics . The legislative fix for this misguided regulatory effort is clear – mandate economic analyses as a justification for any CPSC regulation. It is also necessary to restore (actually, to mandate the use of) risk assessment by the CPSC. Risk is all about cost allocation and cost management. By removing the ability to assess risk, Congress essentially removed the wiring necessary for the CPSC to make an intelligent assessment of the economics of their decisions. While the CPSIA was clearly written and passed into law in anger, enough time has passed to expect cooler heads to prevail. Congress, it’s time to act!

View original post here:
CPSIA – Do Accidents Happen?

CPSIA – CPSC Announces that 100 PPM is Technologically Feasible

The CPSC put out its report today concluding that the 100 ppm lead-in-substrate standard may come into force on August 14, 2011 because it is technologically feasible.  To quote: “Based upon this analysis, the staff could not recommend that the Commission make a determination that it is not technologically feasible for a product or product category to meet the 100 ppm lead content limit for children’s products under section 101(d) of the CPSIA.” This applies to EVERY product and EVERY product category. You are now OFFICIALLY SCREWED and may begin throwing out inventory.  Don’t expect Congress to help you out.

View post:
CPSIA – CPSC Announces that 100 PPM is Technologically Feasible

CPSIA – ECADA Mark-up Delayed . . . What Did You Expect?

Continuing Congress’ recent tradition of partisan gridlock, the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday “postponed” the mark-up on the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA).  This is no doubt due to the politically-advantageous intransigence of the Dems on basically ANY amendment of the CPSIA.  Although they (through the mouthpiece of Henry Waxman) concede that the law must be changed, they really don’t mean it.  Your concerns . . . your complaints . . . your data-driven critiques of the awful CPSIA . . . your lost revenue . . . your lost business opportunities . . . your escalating costs . . . your job cuts . . . have ALL fallen on deaf Dem ears, all for the greater good of putting more Dems in a position to say THEY hold the high moral ground and love children more than evil Republicans.  Soon they will finish the job by preventing any fixes to the CPSIA. The next chance for a mark-up is the weeks of July 7 or 14.  And, if you aren’t aware somehow, on August 14, the lead standard drops to 100 ppm by legal action under the original CPSIA.  Among the many reasons why the Republicans have been working on this amendment since the FIRST DAY OF THE NEW CONGRESS (see my blogposts of January 7th  and thereafter) is to head off that terrible change in law.  Aside from the absurdity that Congress ENDORSED the sale of merchandise with 300 ppm lead for two years only to legislate a reverse course on August 14, 2011 when the merchandise magically becomes dangerous overnight, the provision has been interpreted to be RETROACTIVE in effect.  In other words, your inventory becomes unsaleable after August 13 even if in compliance with prior law if even a single component violates the trace 100 ppm lead-in-substrate standard.  For perspective, consider that the dirt in the White House vegetable garden has been tested out at 93 ppm lead. As previously discussed in this space, retroactive bans are extremely rare in American law and never before have they been so carelessly used or endorsed as in the awful CPSIA.  So there is a ticking time bomb in the CPSIA – and the Dems are perfectly content to let it explode in your warehouse or your store.  Expect many order cancellations soon. Thanks Dems.  Good job governing. 

Read this article:
CPSIA – ECADA Mark-up Delayed . . . What Did You Expect?

CPSIA – Status of CPSIA Amendment (ECADA)

Having delayed the mark-up of the CPSIA Amendment bill (ECADA), the House is out of session for the next week.  The timing for resumption of the consideration of this bill has not been released.  I think it is incumbent on us to make a fuss over this delay and to press our Congressional representatives to act to pass this law.  Other industry groups are pushing for the meager and surgical relief offered by this law – but the Dems continue to resist.  The Dems moan and groan as though ECADA guts the CPSIA, perhaps banking on a docile media to not challenge their characterization of a very balanced and frankly, rather undramatic bill.  In fact, I was just interviewed by a reporter whose opening question was why the controversy over a bill that changes so little about the CPSIA.  Good question. I have an explanation to offer you  – it’s just politics, pure and simple, 100% politics.  As previously noted, the Republicans were sensitive to the excesses of the law before it was passed.  Given that the CPSIA was passed in August 2008, as America headed to the polls en masse to overwhelmingly elect Mr. Obama as our President, all members of Congress (other than Rand Paul and three others) saw the wisdom of supporting this bill.  The political cost of opposition to the CPSIA was unbearable – as my own representative told me face-to-face in July 2008, even though the CPSIA was over-the-top, he had to vote for it, otherwise he would face election commercials accusing him of defending corporations over children’s safety.  He would not sacrifice his job over this vote.  He assured me that Congress usually goes too far in its bills, but would go back in 12-to-18 months to fix it.  Not in this case, apparently. So the Republicans, like the Democrats, preferred the safe route politically in the summer of 2008, but by all appearances, wanted to go back and fix the bill as predicted by my district’s representative.  To their credit, the Republicans have used the majority  power in the House restored in the 2010 midterm elections to reach out to both sides on this issue, as well as to the Dems, to find appropriate middle ground on this contentious issue.  [I have discussed these efforts in this space over the course of 2011.]  The new General Counsel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Gib Mullan, is the ex-General Counsel and ex-Director of Compliance and Field Operations at the CPSC, so let’s posit that he understands the law pretty well from all angles. Even with this new horsepower (intellectual and political), the Dems haven’t responded to the Republicans’ entreaties and resolutely won’t yield on any points.  They continue to fight ECADA tooth and nail. Why? It’s politics, just politics.  Drop any notion that the Dems care about you . . . or your employees . . . or your suppliers . . . or your dealers . . . . or the consumers, teachers, families or schools that want, need and use your products every day.   Jobs, schmobs.  The well-documented and negative consequences of the CPSIA on our markets and economy (not to mention the paltry or nonexistent acheivements of the law) are just not on the Dems’ radar. They only care about getting reelected – their concern is simply themselves.  As in 2008, the ECADA issue is tailor-made for political gains.  As far as I can tell, that’s too tempting a morsel to pass up, damn the consequences on the “little people”.  The Dems argue to the populace that anything that makes the world better for your business necessarily makes life worse for kids.  Zero sum.  It’s a stupid, nonsensical argument, but if you give it no thought, it might SOUND good.  The Dems know their position makes them look good to a dozing electorate and a gullible media, and makes the Republicans push a lot of chips into the center of the table to do the right thing for our country. The Dems are also catering to their power base, the consumerists.  The consumer groups have their own axes to grind. For one thing, if they give an inch here, some people might accuse them of being hypocrites.  After all, they have repeated the Big Lie (“There is no safe level of lead”) for so long that it would come as a shock and disappointment to their true believers if they conceded the (intentional) error of their bumper sticker slogan.  In addition, their budgets are paid for by trial lawyers.  If they give in, there will less money available for tort lawyers to suck out of the system. That won’t work, will it? So the Dems are opposing restoring sanity to the safety laws for entirely self-interested political reasons.  Not ONE Democrat has EVER broken with the Waxman line. They have stuck together like glue.  Hats off to them for being well-organized.  But the Dems should be ashamed of themselves as public citizens – by putting their own PERSONAL interests ahead of the country and its economic engine, they are taking the low road.  Throwing our company, our jobs, our products, the families and schools that need our products, throwing everyone under the bus all to save their own jobs – that’s contemptible.  This is your government at work. Please reach out to your Congressmen to express your outrage.  Send emails and faxes, and ask your friends, relatives and associates to do it, too. Let’s clog the inboxes with complaints.  It’s time to stand up for what’s right!

Read More:
CPSIA – Status of CPSIA Amendment (ECADA)

CPSIA – Dem CPSC Commissioners Shamefully Protest ECADA

In yet another display of partisanship and, frankly, SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE, the three Democratic CPSC Commissioners issued a harshly-worded warning over passage of the pending CPSIA Amendment (ECADA).  While I dimly recall Inez Tenenbaum pledging early in her CPSC career to be a force for cohesion on the Commission, all pretenses of bipartisanship have been dropped by the Dem Commissioners nowadays.  This latest letter-in-tandem mocks the notion that the Commission is capable of working together.  The letter further casts doubt on the Dem Commissioners’ ability to process scientific information or manage scientific processes.  These people control a federal regulatory agency.   This is YOUR government at work . The Dem letter came on the same day as the latest volley from the desperate consumer groups (CFA, Consumers Union and the like).  As in their past missives, this letter twists facts, avoids truths and presents the fully misleading impression that the Republican majority are in the process of trashing the very structure of safety administration in this country.  Be still my heart, it’s not true, unfortunately.  You’d never know it from them. Perhaps the two letters have the same author, who knows?  Anyhow, here’s a few comments on the Commissioners’ letter: a.  “The current draft of ECADA fails to adequately protect the health and safety of American children. . . .” RW – The Commissioners do not back up this outrageous assertion but notice that it lingers in the air. The three Dems on the Commission, including the Chairman, are accusing the Republicans of harming children.  Pretty serious charge, right?  So . . . can they show with injury statistics or case histories that the extremely modest changes being made by ECADA are linked to injuries?  No, they CANNOT.  So . . . can they prove that the presence of lead-in-substrate at ANY level has EVER been associated with childhood injury from interaction with children’s products?  If they could, that might provide support for the purported NEED for the standards they so staunchly defend.  No, they CANNOT. I don’t know how we can accept this kind of behavior from people appointed to positions so high up in our government. b.   “ECADA Rolls Back Marketplace Progress on Lead”. RW – Note the cute wording of this warning.  You have to read it carefully to get the point they are making.  They say that this amendment changes how the marketplace will deal with lead.  Yes, Adler and Co. are talking about “dosing” again.  Remember the howler they sent in April accusing manufacturers of a desire to increase the “doses” of lead inflicted on children.  Frankly, that offense has never been remedied.  At the time, people associated with the House Subcommittee mumbled about calling the three Commissioners in to defend their ridiculous and slanderous accusation but it never happened.  Here it is, again.  It’s an outrage. The Dem Commissioners go further into obfuscation-land when they refer to a “recent Commission hearing” on the feasibility of implementing the 100 ppm lead-in-substrate standard.  Ummm, I was on the third panel in that hearing, I gave testimony, too.  The Commissioners tell about SGS testimony that out of nearly 90,000 tests performed by the lab, an inspiring 96.29% of metal components were under 100 ppm.  Cool!  Sounds like a slam dunk, right?  Well, perhaps the selective memory Dem Commissioners may recall that I gave SIMILAR testimony, indicating that our company data shows that 1.7% of our tests (46 out of 2701 recent passing tests) fall between 100 ppm and 300 ppm lead-in-substrate BUT we cannot predict which parts or products will be affected.  In other words, it’s random and uncontrollable.  I also gave this same testimony in writing as part of my comments on the 100 ppm standard. This has very dramatic implications for our costs and the predictability (financability) of our results – the Commissioners heard me and they know this.  You’d never know it, however. It’s worth noting further that the CPSC requested my presence at this hearing.  They called me and asked me to spend my own money to fly to Washington to testify on this subject.  Do you think this means they wanted to hear what I had to say . . . so they could ignore it??? The Commissioners go on to shriek about the “large exception” for metal component parts in “outdoor recreational products”.  Whoa, scary – right?!  In fact, maybe not.  If the Dems were paying attention, they would realize that ECADA simply codifies THEIR OWN WORK – the standards applied to metal are from a stay the Commission itself approved for metal components in February 2009.  Perhaps the Commissioners should read this Federal Register notice to bone up.  I guess having approved literally thousands of pages of rules and whatnot relating to the CPSIA, the Commissioners can be forgiven for not remembering their own work.  Ouch! The Dem Commissioners may be on a mission and play a bit fast and loose with truth and accuracy . . . but when they say “ECADA would allow more lead back into our children’s products”, it must be considered a LIE made by knowing people.  There is ABSOLUTELY no support for this statement and their pathetic arguments are paper-thin and obviously fallacious.  Perhaps they think we are all stupes and will believe whatever they put on paper. THESE PEOPLE ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS.  THIS STANDARD OF SERVICE IS UNACCEPTABLE.  IF CONGRESS WON’T FIX THE LAW, THEY SHOULD CONSIDER DE-FUNDING THIS AGENCY UNTIL IT STOPS ITS ROGUE ACTIVITIES.  MR. WAXMAN ISN’T CALLING THE SHOTS ANYMORE.  MR. BOEHNER, PLEASE HELP ME. c.  The Dems protest the curtail of mandatory testing, without acknowledging that the standards will still be in force and enforceable.  How will manufacturers know they are in compliance?  Duh, they will test.  The Dems know this.  Still, they intone:  “Unfortunately, this proposal will take us back to the days of not knowing what is in a children’s product – and discovering dangers only after untold numbers of children are exposed to risks of harm”.  Perhaps, perhaps.  But don’t you think we should evaluate this claim of the prospect of future loss by looking at past losses?  Oh no, can’t do that because the advocates cannot produce any victims.  Hmmm. Perhaps more disgusting is to receive a letter dated May 25, 2011 with this little sugar plum in it:  “We have previously acknowledged the need for some targeted relief from the third-party testing requirements of CPSIA for small crafters and small businesses . . . .”  These guys are so great, they really FEEL our pain.  Sadly, busy as they are, they have not gotten around to developing this relief since the law passed in August 2008, three years ago.  That said, I bet it’s on their “to do” list! d.  The Dems point to a provision in ECADA that they allege “would allow child care centers to provide extremely old cribs that do not meet the new safety standard for our most vulnerable population”.  Again, the words used are intended to cloak the Commissioners in white and place black hats on Republicans pushing for ECADA.  In my view, that’s very very misleading.  As far as I can tell, they refer to Section 5(b) of ECADA .  Why not read it yourself and see if you agree with them or with me? e.  It’s late at night and I have a flight in a few hours, so I am not going to waste much time on their absurd protestations on the public database.  Blah blah blah. Apparently, they deem it essential that you be able to read stuff like this: Gas Grate Cleaner   36 yo man thought that he was making iced tea and poured powder from the container of Elco Gas Grate Cleaner. when he tasted it he realized that it was not tea, felt burning in his throat and went to the hospital emergency room. he was admitted overnight and discharged in the morning. NOTE TO SELF:   Don’t make tea out of grate cleaner. Happy Harvest Canned goods    Happy Harvest canned goods which contain corn, peas, mixed vegetables sold by Aldi have a can design that is not stackable. Both sides of the can are made equally making it impossible to stack on top of eachother such as other cans are able to do. . . . When one can is moved where they are stacked closely to each other, it creates a chain reaction and most of the cans fall.  This was the case today when my wife was retrieving something from the pantry and my fifteen month old daughter followed her in. When my wife moved an item, two Happy Harvest cans fell and one of them struck my daughter on her head causing a big bump. It could have been a lot worse. This is very unsafe as the stacking of cans become unstable and can fall at anytime. My daughter was the victim of this poor can design. [Emphasis added] NOTE TO CPSC:   A mandatory safety standard for can stacking is long overdue.  Who knows how many 15 month old toddlers are at risk because you are sleeping on the job – get to work! RW – My sources tell me that the Dems are not going to support ECADA – none of them.  This is utterly irrational but is also consistent with their past practice of travelling in a pack and blindly supporting the consumer groups.  You, the taxpayer, are the big loser at the Dems’ hand.  They have heard you . . . for three years-plus . . . and just DON’T CARE.  They just DON’T CARE about your petty problems, and more profoundly, are not curious or even mildly interested in rational, data-driven criticisms of the basis of the CPSIA.  Anything that reflects badly on their consumer group allies may safely be ignored. If the Dems stand their ground and don’t pass ECADA with bipartisan support, there is a distinct possibility that the Senate will not act at all on this CPSIA amendment.  In other words, this terrible law is likely to stand pat without amendment. That’s your government at work.  I am going to give some more money to Republicans myself.

See original article:
CPSIA – Dem CPSC Commissioners Shamefully Protest ECADA

CPSIA – AAP’s Campaign of Lies on CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) Continues

Not quite out of town yet, Cindy Pelligrini and her AAP associate have promulgated another letter today with more lies and misstatements about lead and the CPSIA. It is worth observing that there is no doubt, and never has been any doubt, that lead is a neurotoxin and is capable to harming children.  I think that’s a given.  The AAP letter gives considerable air time to remaking this point over and over again.  Got it, thanks.  What the AAP cannot do, and never has done, is prove a LINK between the presence of lead-in-substrate in children’s products (shoes, educational products, books, ATVs, pens, bikes, t-shirts, shoes and so on) with actual injuries.  Nada, nothing.  Instead, they emphasize the “danger”, sometimes lapsing into fantastic arguments calculating “losses” based on assumed and undocumented injuries, but NEVER do they address the subject of causation or nexus. A good example of AAP tall tales is from their May 11 letter: “The potential impact of lead in children’s products is real.  For example, in 2007 and 2008, over 9.8 million pieces of children’s toy jewelry were recalled for excessive levels of lead.  If just one-half of one percent of these items caused lead exposure in a child, 49,000 children would have been affected.  If each of those children lost one IQ point – which can occur at levels of exposure below 100 parts per million – the economic burden of that lead exposure would be at least $409 million just in lost lifetime income. Health economists estimate that every time average blood lead level increases by a small amount across the children born in any given year, $7.5 billion is lost in potential earnings for those children.” But the AAP cannot deliver up even one such victim.  All such calculations are therefore pure fantasy.  Or should I say pure ignominy? Today’s letter is no better.  See below with my annotations in red .: May 24, 2011 The Honorable Fred Upton Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Mary Bono Mack Chairwoman Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Upton and Chairwoman Bono Mack: As experts in the field of pediatrics, environmental health, and toxics, we would like to express our deep concern over the consideration of legislation that would have the effect of permitting more lead in toys and children’s products. [ This is a LIE - ECADA does not permit "more lead in toys and children's products".] Lead is a potent toxicant that can have a range of adverse effects on children’s brains and bodies. Low lead levels cause a wide array of negative effects, including cognitive, motor, behavioral, and physical harm. Even at very low levels, lead has been demonstrated to cause the loss of IQ points in children. [ AAP citations call into question cause and effect, noting the many factors involved including self-selection.] Children with elevated blood lead levels are more likely to experience attention deficit and reading disabilities, and to fail to graduate from high school.  [They are also more likely to live in poverty, in older housing, in inner cities and eat paint chips.]  Researchers have identified associations between lead exposure and increased aggression, commission of crime and antisocial or delinquent behaviors.  [Ditto]  Other effects include abnormal balance, poor eye-hand coordination, longer reaction times, and sleep disturbances. At high levels, lead can be fatal. [Can the AAP show me an example of ONE CHILD who died or was injured from lead-in-substrate EVER?  Apparently not - four Congressman tried to get the same information during the April 7th House hearing without success.]  Lead accumulates in the human body and is stored in the bone, so multiple low-level doses can quickly result in harmful levels. For all of these reasons, our nation has for decades pursued a multi-faceted strategy of reducing children’s exposure to lead from all sources, including air, paint, soil, food, water, and the full range of consumer products. [The AAP cites a CDC publication  in their May 11 letter on lead in which the CDC points to lead in paint, interior dust, exterior dust and dirt and lead in tap water.]  To date, science has not been able to identify any safe level of lead exposure for children. In 2008, Congress passed legislation that recognized the devastating effects of lead on children’s health and strictly limited lead content in toys and other children’s products. The Consumer Product Safety improvement Act protected children up to the age of 12, thereby covering the full period in which the vast majority of children will experience both rapid brain growth and the behaviors that increase lead exposure. [Human factors experts at the CPSC have long acknowledged that mouthing behavior ends at about age three.  Mouthing behavior over age three is unusual and considered age-inappropriate, meaning that it is the responsibility of parents and caretakers to monitor and manage such behaviors to the extent they occur.]  The law also phased in limits on lead content, with the final stage of that limit scheduled to take effect this August. That restriction of no more than 100 parts per million of lead in children’s products is expected to all but eliminate the possibility that exposure to a single product could cause the loss of one IQ point. [The AAP's assertion that there is a "possibility" of a loss of an IQ point from an interaction with lead-in-substrate in a children's product is purely conjectural and without basis in fact.  Their persistence in advancing this argument without proof must be considered evidence of an intent to deceive.]   These provisions represent critically important protections for children’s health and are a vital component of a comprehensive strategy to reduce lead exposure from all sources. [Interestingly, neither the CDC nor the EPA take this position.  In fact, the EPA notes:  "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 . . . . 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."] Given the extreme difficulty or impossibility of eliminating children’s exposure to lead in our air, soil, water and food, it becomes even more imperative to limit lead from those exposures we can control, such as children’s products. [Having never provided any nexus between trace levels of bound-in, insoluble lead-in-substrate in children's products and any known health risk, this sentence is either a lie or intentionally misleading.  The AAP could resolve all such matters in its favor if it ever proved its case.  Over the past four years, it has failed to do so.]  We urge you to maintain strict limits on lead in all parts of toys and products meant for children up to the age of 12 years. Signed by 100 “experts”

Continue Reading:
CPSIA – AAP’s Campaign of Lies on CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) Continues

« Previous Page — Next Page »