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 – Fait Accompli

Tomorrow the stage is set for the ultimate triumph of the Waxmanis:  the predicted approval of the 100 ppm lead standard by 3-2 party line vote.  The three Democrats will express regret, saying that Congress forced them to do it, and calling on Congress to let them make this standard prospective only.  They will no doubt also assert that this is good for all of us, given that “there is no safe level of lead”, that old chestnut unsupported by any injury data. No doubt the 100 ppm lead limit will fix all of these imaginary problems.  The Republicans will note the pointlessness of it all, and remind us of the cost of the provision.  Jobs will be lost.  The Republicans will be right, but the Dems have a political agenda to implement, and you will be sacrificed.  Mr. Obama’s Executive Order will not give the Dems pause. After three years, I am numb to this behavior.  The Dem Commissioners are and have always been beyond reach, unimpressed by reason or data.  That comes from a strong conviction of the correctness of their position with no need to reconsider.  As Bob Adler’s testimony at the Oversight hearing on July 7th indicates, the Dems are ever ready to defend the CPSIA faith.  [Check out the testimony given in questioning by the estimable Jan Schakowsky.]  Data, schmata. For those of you who have expended energy, or committed resources, to providing information to the CPSC after three years on this provision (comment letters, testimony, etc.), please note that it was all a set-up.  The decision facing the Commission is whether the 100 ppm lead level is “technologically feasible”. The legislative definition of this term of art does NOT take into consideration cost, perhaps because every life is precious and of infinite value.  It does not matter what it costs to comply, only whether it is somehow possible.  CPSC Staff confirms that everything can be made without lead using this definition however absurd.  So the Dems have no reason to vote against the new standard.   No reason . . . .   Consider the views of the American Apparel and Footwear Association in a letter dated July 11, 2011 on this topic: “We strongly urge the Commission to declare that it is not technologically feasible to meet the 100ppm standard for the simple reasons that:  (a) it is impossible to meet a standard retroactively; (b) compliance cannot be assured because of continued issues with material variability, especially with metals; (c) compliance is complicated by the regulatory uncertainty generated by the technological unfeasibility issue as well as the ongoing delay in the so-called “15-month rule”; (d) the new standard will impose significant costs on manufacturers, costs which disproportionately affect smaller companies; and (e) inter-lab variability, especially at the lower limits, make consistent compliance impossible.” Details, details – the Dems DON’T CARE.  Tomorrow the Commission will enact an egregiously out-of-whack rule from a cost-benefit standpoint a mere two days after Obama ordered the CSPC by name to review all rules for being overly burdensome.  Yawn.  After three years of this, what else would you expect?

Read the original post:
CPSIA – Fait Accompli

CPSIA – Letter to CPSC re Executive Order on Regulatory Review

President Obama issued an  Executive Order yesterday instructing the CPSC to institute “retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.”   Notably, the order specifies “allowing interested members of the public to have a meaningful opportunity to participate in rulemaking”. In the White House blog announcing the Executive Order, Inez Tenenbaum is quoted as follows:   “Earlier this year, I directed agency staff to reinvigorate CPSC’s voluntary review process, which is intended to look at ways to maximize openness and public participation, and effectively review substantive regulations that may require revision, repeal, or strengthening . . . . I believe this approach is consistent with President Obama’s call for a sensible and streamlined regulatory system that is protective of public health and safety, and I look forward to working with the President and Congress, as appropriate, as our review process moves forward.” As you know, I have participated in CPSC public forums numerous times in the last three years, in addition to testifying before a House subcommittee twice on the CPSIA.  I have testified at the CPSC at least five times by my count, several times at the invitation/request of the agency.  I have done so at my expense.  In each case, I believe my testimony was disregarded.  My positions on the CPSIA have been publicly documented, principally in my blog which I know you read.  My positions have been consistent and backed up by data open to anyone’s review.   Now that the CPSC is subject to an Executive Order demanding real public input, I call on the agency to break with its past of disregarding inconvenient opinions or those that may subvert a political agenda, and allow the public to participate MEANINGFULLY in this critical process.  Those of us who have attempted to stop the CPSIA train wreck have been thoroughly marginalized by a process that uses us to create an impression of public dialogue without actually taking any meaningful feedback or adjusting any preexisting plans.  The President did not order the agency to provide a public forum for VENTING.  He has ordered the CPSC to afford the public a “meaningful opportunity to participate in rulemaking”.   To me, the Executive Order means that when we present reasoned arguments with actual data, the agency has NO OPTION other than to listen and take into account our views.  There is nothing in the Executive Order that indicates that consumer groups speak for the public or should be accorded extra weight in your deliberations, nor that manufacturers are somehow excluded from the group considered to be “the public”. It is time to recognize the legitimacy of the views of those of us who create much-needed jobs.    With that in mind, I call your attention to a blogpost I wrote on cost/benefit analysis of CPSC decisions and policies under the CPSIA.  Please see my post ” Do Accidents Happen? ” dated June 29th.  In this post, I explain that, as a matter of accepted economic theory and legal theory, the policies and decisions of the CPSC in the wake of the CPSIA have crossed the line into inefficiency and bad public policy.  This is PRECISELY the issue that the President has charged  the agency with investigating and resolving.  Speaking as a business owner in the field of children’s products, I can assure you that time is of the essence.  Every day counts at this point  as the cumulative impact of three years of CPSIA duress has taken a terrible economic toll with virtually no identifiable public health benefit. Writing a law with noble intentions does not ensure that it will be good law or one that benefits society.  In the case of the CPSIA, the issue has never been “What price safety?”  A failure to effectively enforce the law prior to the CPSIA never constituted a need for new safety rules anymore that a failure to enforce traffic laws means that we need lower speed limits.  New approaches to enforcement, perhaps, but new standards, no.  The question today is “What price survival”? Businesses and markets have been punished mercilessly in service of the CPSIA but to what end? President Obama’s order comes after years of public outrage over regulatory excesses and significantly, was issued shortly after a House Oversight hearing featuring two CPSC Commissioners examining the question of economy inefficiency in rulemaking.  I fully believe that the agency can never fix this mess without taking a strong stance on real CPSIA reform. The CPSIA took away the agency’s right to assess risk, not its ABILITY to assess risk.  This is a truly counterintuitive approach to safety, as safety is all about risk management.  There is no logic to this approach which sadly renders the expert opinions of the CPSCs legions of Ph.D.s meaningless at critical junctures for my market.  I am frustrated, to put it mildly, that ALL CPSC Commissioners do not regularly protest this subversion of process and responsibility.  This problem is at the core of the issue with the CPSIA and should be offensive to Democrats and Republicans alike.  The failure of any Commissioner to demand the right to exercise his/her honest judgment is akin to acknowledging that they do not trust themselves to act prudently and in the interest of the public.  Do the Commissioners really believe that taking away their authority is necessary to ensure sound decision-making?  That reasoning never worked with my teenagers.   Resolving the issues that the President has ordered the CPSC to examine will certainly require the exercise of judgment.  It is inescapable that the Commission must be prepared to deliver this unpleasant news to Congress for better or worse.   I look forward to a meaningful public process investigating these issues, and pledge my support and engagement in this process. I want to be helpful but ask in return that the agency turn over a new leaf and let rational arguments supported with data influence outcomes in CPSIA rulemakings and policies. Please do not hesitate to contact me with your comments and questions.  Thank you for considering my views on this important subject. Respectfully, Richard Woldenberg Chairman Learning Resources, Inc. Vernon Hills, Illinois

Continue reading here:
CPSIA – Letter to CPSC re Executive Order on Regulatory Review

CPSIA – American Job Creators (Remember When We Did That?)

The House Majority Leader wants to know how the CPSC and the CPSIA are affecting your business.  They have a website set up for you to download everything you know about the misconceived CPSIA and resulting three year nightmare.  The first agency listed on the web page is the CPSC. Have some fun with this!  Feel free to post your insights here, too.

Read the original post:
CPSIA – American Job Creators (Remember When We Did That?)

CPSIA – Shams and the People Who Perpetrate Them

As far back as December 2009, CPSIA zealots have been promoting the notion that a “functional purpose” exemption is the centerpiece of any fix to the CPSIA.  See Henry Waxman’s first attempt at a middle-of-the-night amendment to the CPSIA.  Chairman Inez Tenenbaum chimed in in January 2010 to support the need for a functional purpose exemption:  ” I have learned through our implementation of the law, however, that there are circumstances where the exclusion of lead in certain materials or component parts is extremely problematic. Accordingly, it would be helpful for Congress to create a new exclusion to the section 101(a) lead content limits that would allow some flexibility in cases where lead is required for a functional purpose and the elimination of the lead is impracticable or impossible. “  At their insistene, this term has always been part of each draft of CPSIA amendment being discussed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This same approach lives on in ECADA today.  Does it really make sense to offer an “out” for items or materials which “[require] the inclusion of lead because it is not practicable or not technologically feasible to manufacture” without violative lead levels?  How might that judgment be made?  No matter – the exemption sounds like a nice gesture by the powers-that-be, doesn’t it?  Leaves the door cracked just a bit so that companies in the children’s market can preserve hope, right?  The provision also addresses the unfortunate but predictable fact that the CPSC has been “unable” to grant even one exemption to the CPSIA in the last three years.  Zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothin’.  Advocates insist that this exemption process solves the problem of an overly-inflexible law without unnecessarily “endangering” children from dreaded lead. I wonder if you would feel differently if you knew that there are no conceivable materials or products that meet this standard.  The CPSC Staff confirmed it in writing.  The CPSC report on 100 ppm released last week confirms once and for all that the functional purpose exemption is an outright SHAM.  This darling of Rep. Henry Waxman and his minions (including Adler and Tenenbaum) will never be used to grant even one exemption, thus perpetuating the hoax that the CPSIA has exemptions.  It doesn’t, it never has and if the Dems get their way with this provision, it never will.  This is no accident. The CPSC Staff report concludes that the 100 ppm lead level is “technologically feasible” for all products and all materials.  Thus, they recommend the implementation of the new standard on time on August 14 to apply to everything.  This is critical – they conclude that every material and every product can be produced at the 100 ppm level.  This is actually a narrow judgment under very specific conditions set out in the CPSIA.  “Technologically feasible” is a term of art under the law – it does not have the ordinary English language meaning you might otherwise expect.  Of particular note, the definition does not refer to cost or economics in any fashion.  In other words, if it can be done (at any expense, regardless of how ridiculous), it must be done.  As the staff discovered, almost anything is “technologically feasible” under this definition in a low tech business like children’s products.  Of course, you might have to spend a lot of money or take a lot of economic risk.  The law is indifferent to these pedestrian concerns.  To reach this conclusion, staff also dispensed with the notion that anyone “used” lead at these trace levels. They note that intentional uses of lead were always at concentrations well above 300 ppm:   ”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).  Therefore, staff does not believe that children’s product manufacturers intentionally design or make products or components with the maximum allowable lead content because lead concentration near the maximum limit would have no benefit or purpose to the product or the manufacturer.”  In other words, lead is never “included” in children’s products at these levels.  [Note to the Dem Commissioners - you can now officially apologize for your insulting remark that we manufacturers intend to "dose" children with lead if standards are even slightly loosened.] Staff also confirmed the obvious on health issues relating to these trace levels:  The contribution of products with lead levels of between 100 ppm and 300 ppm is “minimal”. In so concluding, the staff apparently rejected the testimony of the AAP’s estimable Dana Best that IQ points were being lost left and right from trace levels of lead.  So why are the Dems still insisting on a “functional purpose” exemption process?   Well, substantively, there is no rational justification for it anymore – it cannot be granted given staff’s conclusions.  That said, who is going to figure that one out?  It sounds good, makes good press for an easily-duped media, and allows Dems to adopt the stump-worthy posture of “listening” to corporate victims while still protecting children against evil companies out to poison them.  As I said, who is going to connect the dots and figure this one out?  Expect every draft of the pending CPSIA amendment to include this obsolete notion no matter the facts.  It’s good for you, remember! This is called leadership in Washington today.

View post:
CPSIA – Shams and the People Who Perpetrate Them

CPSIA – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

We live in interesting times.  There has been no action by Congress to deal with the CPSIA since its controversial passage in August 2008 despite consistent and loud hue and cry.  Right now, Dems are blocking progress.  Apparently, they think the biggest threat to America is ANY change to the CPSIA. Our markets, our jobs, our livelihoods will be a necessary sacrifice to . . . what?  Reelection. During this crisis of thousands of businesses catering to children, a Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee charged with managing the CPSIA mess, has been emailing photos of his you-know-what to women and girls all over America.  One of Anthony Weiner’s email correspondents was reportedly voted ” Most likely to be involved in a tabloid scandal ” by her high school class (she’s only 21, it wasn’t long ago).  I think you get the (sordid) picture.  Mr. Weiner has been of no use on the CPSIA, riding the high horse “protecting children” with his Dem brethren, at the VERY SAME TIME he was using the Internet for interactions that are, at a minimum, pretty creepy.  So Weiner is against letting even a notch out on the CPSIA belt around our necks, too unsafe . . . but he thinks it’s okay to creep around on the Internet, shooting pics of himself in the Congressional locker room and sending them out to his female Internet pals ( one of whom was a porn star ).  Hypocrisy?  How can that be, the Dems are cloaked in white, right??? Mr. Weiner remains perplexingly in office.  As Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus noted on Meet the Press : ” What we called for is for Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leaders in this country to do what every American knew had to be done immediately and call for his resignation. Now, it seemed to me that for the first 10 days in this circus that the only job [in America] that Nancy Pelosi was interested in saving was Anthony Weiner’s . We’ve got crushing unemployment in this country, we’ve got a president that’s, that’s whistling past the graveyard, we’ve got families that are struggling, and instead we’ve got leadership in a Democratic Party that are defending a guy that deserves no defense .”  [Emphasis added] And back at the ranch, the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) is stalled.  Why?  Consider the May 25th words of Rep. Henry Waxman, Ranking Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee and principal roadblock to relief: ” But instead of refining a good law, the Republican bill goes after the law with a wrecking ball . The result is an assault on children’s safety.  The Republicans call their bill the ‘Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act.’ A better name is the ‘Unsafe Toy Act.’ “  [Emphasis added] That’s right – the Dem leader is calling the work of the Republican majority the “Unsafe Toy Act”.  Hmmm.  Please NOTE that the General Counsel of this committee (Gib Mullen) is the former General Counsel of the CPSC and its former Director of Compliance.  Is the implication that this former Kirkland & Ellis partner is a “hack”, lacking principle and integrity and is simply doing as he is told by Republican overlords who don’t care about children’s safety?  Please, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The label “Unsafe Toy Act” is an insult and a lie in so many ways.  First of all, it isn’t true.  As I have discussed extensively in this space, ECADA is a surgical revision to the CPSIA, designed to fine tune the law without restructuring it.  Reporters have called me to ask what the big deal is.  Good question but the answer is obvious.  No rational person subject to the laws of the United States or residing here would want to make toys, or any children’s product, “unsafe”.  If you insist that they would, Mr. Waxman, PROVE IT.  Oh yeah, you don’t do that, do you? Second, Mr. Waxman impugns the dignity and integrity of anyone who would dare support ECADA.  That includes me since for more than 20 years my career has been devoted to making educational products (with perhaps the best safety record in the entire children’s product industry).  Mr. Waxman’s label plainly announces to the general public that I favor poisoning kids to make more money.  That is rather offensive, to say the least.  Members of the House of Representatives are permitted to speak their minds, through and including libelous remarks, while on the House floor.  They literally can say ANYTHING with impunity – I can’t sue them for this slander.  As such, there is no recourse for this slander. This unfortunate label is at the heart of what the Dems are after – political advantage.  Those of you who periodically pepper me with defenses of good Democrats fail to recognize the consistent pattern of obstruction and failure to act reasonably among the small group (cabal) of Dems and associated consumer groups behind this roadblock.  The pattern of lies is all for political effect.  Can you imagine the reelection commercials?  Good for the Dems, bad for anyone who disagrees with them.   The threat even applies to Dems who might have a conscience and be willing to stand up to the demagogues – the consumer groups are ready to attack them, too.  Everyone knows it, no one wants to say it. Mr. Waxman trots out the usual lies and misstatements, relying on the trick of portraying this law as a “toy law”: ” The Unsafe Toy Act triples the amount of lead allowed in most children’s toys. For some children’s products, the bill would allow lead levels to increase 100 times or more.  The bill eviscerates the requirement that toys imported from China be independently tested for safety. . . . Just listen to what the experts are saying about this bill. The Consumer Federation of America says that the bill creates ‘huge loopholes.’ Consumers Union says it will ‘lower standards and roll back safeguards for children and infants.’  The American Academy of Pediatrics and 100 other experts in children’s health wrote to express their ‘deep concern’ over the bill because it ‘would have the effect of permitting more lead in toys.’  Chairman Inez Tenenbaum of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and a majority of the Commission wrote that the bill ‘would effectively revoke key protections … and fails to adequately protect the health and safety of American children.’ ” I have rebutted the consumer group ”arguments” numerous times in this space already. I am not going to repeat myself here.  Mr. Waxman’s reference to “triple” lead levels refers to a new limitation on the excessive and useless 100 ppm lead standard that, btw, has never been deemed technologically feasible by the CPSC.  The “change” to lead levels of 100 times or more than existing standards refers to the rule exempting metal alloys (like brass) complying with the stay authorized by the CPSC Commission.  OMG, you mean we can still use brass in children’s products like pens and trumpets?  The HORROR! Neither the consumer groups nor Mr. Waxman and his Dem brethren have answered my question – Where are the victims?   This question was asked several times in the April 7th hearing by members of the committee.  To date, no one has supplied even one case history. No one calls Mr. Waxman to account for his lies and innuendos, so he persists in trashing those who can’t defend themselves.  This is not unlike his unjustified attacks on Toyota that were later proven FALSE .  Mr. Waxman did something similar at the April 7th hearing first discussing the CPSIA Amendment.  In his opening statement , Mr. Waxman laid it on thick:  ” But your discussion draft, which is the subject of today’s hearing, takes a wrecking ball to the law and would endanger young children. . . . Your discussion draft is a very different document. Democrats, consumer groups, and health experts were not consulted. The result is a one-sided proposal that provides relief to industry, but sacrifices children’s health and safety. . . . I have learned over the last few months that there seems to be no limit to the ability of the new Republican majority to pass bad legislation in this Committee and on the House floor. I have no doubt that if you want to do so, you could do so again with your draft bill.  But there is no chance that a bill this extreme could ever become law. It would not survive in the Senate and if it did, it would be vetoed by the President . ” [Emphasis added] It’s always nice to end with a threat. The title of this post refers to a lampoon written by now Senator Al Franken (D-MN).  In this book , he contends that Republicans are liars.  Well, well, well, how times change, huh?  Mr. Franken???  Any comment? I didn’t think so.

Read More:
CPSIA – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

CPSIA – Nancy Nord Points Out the Unpleasant Truth

In the June 1st edition of the WSJ, Nancy Nord was featured in a Letter to the Editor about over-regulation.   Commissioner Nord has had a front seat for the baloney “effort” by the Obama Dems to “reduce” burdensome regulation and to eliminate “uneconomic” regulations.  As Ms. Nord points out, the CPSC has been an oasis of normalcy during this period of regulatory introspection.  Certainly no such deregulation project has been started at the CPSC.  As she notes, she has lost vote after vote requesting cost-benefit analysis for CPSIA and other regulations – all on a party line vote.  Yes, the Dems are voting AGAINST a cost-benefit analysis again and again on the CPSC Commission. It’s your money they are spending.  It’s your business that is crumpling under the burden of their over-reaching laws and rules.  There’s nothing we can do to stop it – except to vote ALL Democrats out of office, including the big guy.  Since they won’t play ball, this is their just desserts. Here is Nancy Nord’s letter: Administration Isn’t Serious About Regulatory Reform I read with interest Cass Sunstein’s assertion that federal agencies are working to eliminate excessively burdensome regulations (“21st-Century Regulation: An Update on the President’s Reforms,” op-ed, May 26). As a commissioner at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), I can attest that no such activity is happening at this agency. We certainly have not combed through our regulations to eliminate those that are “out-of-date, unnecessary, [or] excessively burdensome,” as he suggests is being done across the government. Instead, we are regulating at an unprecedented pace and have pretty much abandoned any efforts to weigh societal benefits from regulations with the costs imposed on the public. The CPSC is an independent regulatory agency and therefore, technically, it is not required to follow the president’s executive orders such as the one Mr. Sunstein refers to mandating a “cost-effective approach to regulation.” In past administrations, the agency has always followed the lead of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which Mr. Sunstein heads, in such matters. However, under this administration, we have ignored the recent direction to look for and eliminate burdensome regulations. We are just too busy putting out new regulations. I have repeatedly requested that the agency do cost-benefit analysis on our various regulations only to have that request voted down by my fellow commissioners on a party-line basis. Consequently, we are issuing regulations without having done the necessary work to understand the impact of our actions both on those being regulated and on the public. As a result we have imposed regulatory burdens and caused people to lose their livelihoods without a real payback in terms of safety. At the CPSC, common sense regulation doesn’t even get a head-nod. Nancy A. Nord Commissioner Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington

View original post here:
CPSIA – Nancy Nord Points Out the Unpleasant Truth

CPSIA – A Malefactor Exits Stage Right

In the sad, pathetic CPSIA saga, several players have taken up their chips and moved on.  Some, like David Strickland, found other industries to prey upon and destroy (good job with Toyota!).  Others have just disappeared in the mist. I have not heralded the departure of Congressional staff who have played a role in ruining our businesses – they were just doing their jobs, if incompetently. But now one of the true movers and shakers behind the CPSIA has chosen to find other things to do.  And I am speaking of the notorious Cindy Pelligrini of the American Academy of Pediatrics.  Cindy’s last day to create havoc at the AAP is June 3rd; after that, she takes her act over to the March of Dimes.  [What is the lead content in dimes anyhow?]  Cindy deserves special mention, right up there with the Queen Bee herself Rachel Weintraub, as responsible for the mess we all find ourselves in. I have discussed Ms. Pelligrini in this space numerous in the past.  -  Here is Cindy Pelligrini ghosting federal testimony and intercepting questions for its purported author, the estimable Dr. Dana Best.  Dr. Best is a real live doctor.  Ms. Pelligrini told me she holds a degree in political science. .  . .  -  Here is Cindy Pelligrini arguing against risk assessment because it would be too BURDENSOME on the CPSC .  I practically weep over her compassion for the regulators!  She also is the one who promoted the notion of background “contamination” of lead at 40 ppm (as if the presence of a naturally-occurring element is contamination), lower than the lead content of the dirt in Mr. Obama’s garden.  [ Ibid .]  -  Here’s Cindy Pelligrini and the AAP misquoting or misstating the data from their own cited sources on lead poisoning .  I guess the truth is what you make of it.  -  Here is Cindy Pelligrini admitting that she is using the CPSIA strictures to achieve a different end that has nothing to do with lead poisoning , namely the tacit ban of youth model ATVs.   Is manipulation and distortion less offensive if you brazenly admit it? Wow, that’s a hard act to follow!  The pressure’s on Rachel now . . . . As a fitting tribute to Ms. Pelligrini, I offer up quotes from scholarly articles cited in a May 11, 2011 lead scare email she authored with an AAP associate. Most of the citations were not provided with links, perhaps to make this exercise more difficult.  Sorry, Cindy, I cracked the code!  Here are a few nuggets: a.    “Multivariable analysis indicated that residence in older housing, poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic black are still major risk factors for higher lead levels. . . . Risk of lead exposure by year housing built defined as follows . . . 1999–2004: low risk, built 1978 and later; medium risk, built between 1950 and 1977; high risk, built before 1950.”   Jones RL, Homa DM, Meyer PA, Brody DJ, Caldwell KL, Pirkle JL, Brown MJ. Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead Testing Among US Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988–2004 . Pediatrics, Mar 2009; 123: e376 – e385.  [Apparently, old homes come equipped with children's products with dangerously high lead content.  How could there be any other possible explanation for this data?!] b.    “CDC is conducting several activities to focus efforts on preventing lead exposures to children. First, beginning in 2003, CDC required state and local health departments receiving funding for lead poisoning prevention activities to develop and implement strategic childhood lead poisoning elimination plans. Second, CDC and its federal partners, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency, launched new initiatives to control leadbased paint hazards in the highest risk housing, addressing where successive cases of lead poisoning have been identified. Third, CDC and other federal agencies are developing a systematic and coordinated response to identify and eliminate nonpaint sources of exposure (e.g., lead jewelry, food and traditional medicines, and cosmetics). . . . The most common high-dose sources of lead exposure for U. S. children are lead-based paint and lead-contaminated house dust and soil.” Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention.  Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children.  A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .  August 2005.   [What, no reference to children's products?!  Does the CDC know what it's doing?  Come on, there's no safe level for lead . . . .] c.  See my blogpost of May 11 for an analysis of this article. Self-selecting factors may explain the data on lead poisoning, not the hazard itself.  Hmmm.   Chen A, Dietrich KN, Ware JH, Radcliffe J, Rogan WJ. IQ and blood lead from 2 to 7 years of age: are the effects in older children the residual of high blood lead concentrations in 2-year-olds? Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113(5):597-601. d.     “Lead can be found in high concentrations in three media to which children may be directly or indirectly exposed: paint, interior dust, and exterior soil or dust. This section discusses the distribution of lead in these media and their relationships to one another and to blood lead levels (BLLs) in children (Figure 2.1). Lead in tap water, generally a lower dose source of exposure, is also addressed.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Managing Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Young Children: Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention . Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.; 2002.  [Again, the CDC screws up - no apparent awareness of the plague of contaminated children's products.  So dopey, good thing we have the AAP and CFA to ensure that the 100 ppm lead standard is imposed on lead-in-substrate in children's products.  It's a mere detail that no one has EVER produced a single victim of lead poisoning linked to lead-in-substrate in any jurisdiction at any time anywhere in the world.] e.  Article discussing the later consequences of lead poisoning. Does not discuss sources of lead poisoning. “Residual and unmeasured confounding are always of concern in observational studies where all possible covariates cannot be assessed and those available are not measured with equal precision. . . . The inclusion of neuropsychological variables examined in this sample such as measures of executive functioning, attention, and IQ may have amplified the predictive vigor of the models. . . . The possibility that early exposure to Pb may lead to a higher risk of antisocial behavior in later life through its effects on neuropsychological functions is interesting and will be the subject of future analyses of these data. Variables independently associated with measures of antisocial behavior included maternal intelligence and lower birth weight. The association with lower parental IQ was not unexpected and a few studies suggest that delinquency is related to medical complications at birth.”   Dietrich KN, Ris MD, Succop PA, Berger OG, Bornschein RL. Early exposure to lead and juvenile delinquency. Neurotoxicol Teratol. Nov-Dec 2001;23(6):511-518 [Emphasis added] [In other words, lead might explain the social dysfunction of some kids. Then again, so might many other uncontrollable variables well-beyond the ability of this study to analyze or even detect. Clear as mud . . . .] f. A classic “garbage in, garbage out” study, this article argues that a loss of an IQ point results in a corresponding loss of about 0.1 years of schooling. If, however, you note the conclusions or suspicions in the article referenced above in par. c above, you may conclude there may well be other factors at play, such as family income or poverty, age of housing, neighborhood setting, other family dynamics (such as educational background), and the basic intelligence of the kids affected by lead poisoning. Kids presenting as lead poisoned may be the least likely kids to be successful in school for other reasons separate from lead poisoning – in other words, lead poisoning might be a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. The article does not sonsider this possibility. Salkever D. Updated Estimates of Earnings Benefits from Reduced Exposure of Children to Environmental Lead. Environmental Research , 70:1-6: 1995. I could go on and on – Ms. Pelligrini and her associate provide bundles of citations all making similar points. Ms. Pelligrini leaves behind a record replete with misleading conclusions and head fakes. In the process, she accomplished little for kids but managed to ruin many businesses, drive entrepreneurs into other markets, kill jobs and eliminate valued products that kids, families and schools needed and wanted. She had a willing accomplice in the Dems who employ populism to get reelected. Damn the science, we need to make kids safer . . . even if we have no idea what that means! As I noted earlier this year, Walter Lippmann, founding editor of The New Republic and winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom1964, once cited the components of wartime mythmaking as “the casual fact, the creative imagination, the will to believe, and out of these three elements, a counterfeit of reality.” Counterfeit of reality, that’s our Cindy. Cindy, we’ll miss you! Not.

Excerpt from:
CPSIA – A Malefactor Exits Stage Right

CPSIA – Conformed Copy of CPSIA Amendment Sent to House Committee

Here is the conformed copy of the CPSIA amendment as it will be presented to the House Energy and Commerce Committee next week for mark-up.

See the original post:
CPSIA – Conformed Copy of CPSIA Amendment Sent to House Committee

CPSIA – It’s Time To Feel Safe – We’re SAVED!

The Virginia Baker Graeme Pool and Spa Safety Act was designed to prevent a particularly gruesome death that tragically afflicted 11 people over ten years, including the young grandchild of James Baker, former Secretary of State. For the math-addled, that’s one pool drain entrapment death per year in our country of 300 million (I assume some Senators are reading this blog). For perspective, my subversive friend Lenore Skenazy notes that five Americans die from venomous spider bites each year. [Ironically, I was able to find a video of Senators Durbin and Klobuchar teaming up to kill a spider - to keep you safe!]

There is another pool safety “risk” that the two esteemed Senators did not come to the CPSC to discuss – drownings. Any idea how many of THOSE there might be? Quite a few, it turns out. Commissioner Anne Northup notes that CPSC death statistics for 1999-2006 (seven years) account for a mere 27, 514 drownings, or 3,439 per year. 6,685 of these drownings occurred to children 14 and under, or 836 per year. Let’s see, 836 drowned kids each year, divided by 365 days, that;s more than two dead kids per day. At least that’s less than the almost TEN AMERICANS THAT DROWN EVERY DAY.

But I don’t want to be accused of misusing statistics. Fun statistics can prove almost anything if you yank and twist hard enough. Just ask Dr. Dana Best! The CPSC acknowledges that only some of those kid deaths come in a pool or spa: “From 2005-2007 there was an annual average of 385 pool and spa-related drownings for children younger than 15; about 78 percent, or 299, of these children were younger than five. From 2007-2009, there were an estimated average of 4,200 pool or spa emergency department-treated submersions for children younger than 15; and children between the ages of 12 to 35 months represented 47 percent of estimated injuries for these years.” That’s almost one dead kid under five every day of the year and 5-6 serious injuries for kids under three every day. EVERY DAY.

I am just panicked about pool drains . . . .

No wonder the Senators are so worried about the $20 pool drains. It’s a national crisis.

Read more here:
CPSIA – It’s Time To Feel Safe – We’re SAVED!

« Previous Page — Next Page »