CPSIA – Witness List for April 7th CPSIA Amendment Hearing

Memo to Members of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade: When you listen to Dr. Dana Best fling around numbers tomorrow, please remember that “bazillions” is not a real number. When she asserts that there are possibly “millions” of injured children from lead-in-substrate, please demand real, auditable data! The Witnesses: Panel 1 Mr. Robert Jay Howell Assistant Executive Director Hazard Identification and Reduction U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission  Dr. Barbara D. Beck, Ph.D., DABT, FATS Principal Gradient Dr. Dana Best, MD, MPH, FAAP American Academy of Pediatrics  Panel 2 Ms. Erika Z. Jones Partner Mayer Brown On Behalf of the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association   Mr. Paul C. Vitrano General Counsel Motorcycle Industry Council Principal Ms. Sheila A. Millar Partner Keller and Heckman LLP Caroline Cox Research Director Center for Environmental Health Panel 3 Mr. Frederick Locker Locker Greenberg & Brainin PC Mr. Charles A. Samuels Member Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Mr. Dan Marshall Vice President, Handmade Toy Alliance Co-Owner, Peapods Natural Toys & Baby Care   Ms. Rachel Weintraub Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel Consumer Federation of America

See the original post:
CPSIA – Witness List for April 7th CPSIA Amendment Hearing

CPSIA – What Lead Threat, says EPA.

760 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 51 days left until Election Day.

I know Congress told us that lead is a major health threat in children’s products. Far be it from me to doubt the Junior Scientists Club that the Dems have fashioned in Congress. I am sure they know what they’re talking about.

Unfortunately, the Junior Scientists forgot to coordinate with the EPA. Well, why would we think the Environmental Protection Agency would know anything about neurotoxins in the environment or in the home? Strangely, the EPA happens to be very concerned about the presence of lead in the home. In fact, they published a brochure entitled “Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home“. A friend recently signed a lease in the Land-of-Fruit-and-Nuts and was handed this brochure for his safety.

I couldn’t help but be curious. The EPA wants to protect against lead in the home. SURELY they would mention lead in children’s products. Children, our most vulnerable consumers, blah blah blah. Right?

Ummm, no. There is no mention of children’s products, much less lead-in-substrate. The focus is on lead-in-paint ON THE WALLS.

A few “shocking” revelations from dumb ole’ EPA:

a. “People can get in their bodies by breathing or swallowing lead dust, or by eating soil or paint chips containing lead.”

b. “In most cases, lead-based paint that is in good condition is not a hazard.” [Think of all the CPSC recalls for a dot of lead-in-paint.]

c. “Lead is even more dangerous to children under the age of 6.” [Waxman has refused categorically to compromise on this fix for the ridiculous and unsupportable age range of the CSPIA.]

d. “Where Lead-Based Paint is Found” [No mention of anything other than paint found on walls, or in the soil around a home which can pick up dust from interior paint or air pollution.]

e. “Identifying Lead Hazards”

• Lead-based paints
• Deteriorating lead-based paint (peeling, chipping, chalking, crackling or damaged).
• Lead dust
• Lead in soil

No mention of consumer products of any kind. Not even ATVs or bicycle seats!

f. “Other Sources of Lead”

• Drinking water
• The job
• Old painted toys and furniture
• Food and liquids stored in leaded crystal or lead-glazed pottery or porcelain
• Lead smelters
• Hobbies that use lead
• Folk remedies

Hmmm. Lead paint was illegal for YEARS before the CPSIA. Apparently, the EPA was totally asleep at the switch until Congress discovered the mortal hazard of lead lurking in every conceivable consumer product and reengineered the CPSC in its paranoid image. As we know, under Congress’ direction, Inez Tenenbaum assures us that the CPSC “[looks] at what the danger is”. And that danger is the lead bogeyman. Odd, isn’t it, that the EPA continues to circulate this document so out of touch with Congress’ and the CPSC’s insights?

Gotta love good government!

Read more here:
CPSIA – What Lead Threat, says EPA.

CPSIA – What does "Any" Mean, Anyhow? Waxman Staff Weighs in.

The Waxman Amendment 2.0 is still percolating but with Congress on its Spring break, progress has stopped briefly. That does not mean, however, that discussions have ended or that the Amendment is “dead”. It will likely spring back to life shortly as Congress wakes up again next week.

Those of you who savor fractiousness and gridlock in your government will no doubt be pleased to know that the usual bickering and stubborn disputes over the awful CPSIA continues unabated.

In a meeting last week about the Waxman Amendment, senior Waxman staff again rejected the concept of allowing the CPSC to assess risk. [Given the extraordinary conservatism of this CPSC Commission, I can't imagine what Waxman is worried about . . . .]

The position of the Waxmanis has significant implications for the controversy over the word “any” in the lead exemption provision. Some commentators have argued that “any” does not mean none and that if “any” is accorded that meaning, then the exemption process would never yield any exemptions. [CPSC staff have reached similar conclusions, hence their universal rejection of exemption requests. This also explains their puzzling approval of nuclear waste for inclusion in children's products.] Resolution of this issue might not only crack the door for exemptions but might also help narrow the scope of CPSC responsibilities by eliminating obviously safe products from the lead rules. This would be good, to restate the obvious.

According to Waxman staff, the CPSC got it exactly right – the word “any” is meant to prevent exemptions if ANY lead could pass from the subject item into the human body. No matter that this means that there will never be any exemptions possible under the exemption process (!). No matter that there are many other environmental sources of lead which pose a far greater hazard in a child’s life than almost all children’s products. No matter that many useful products might be banned (see my latest casualty post). In the Waxmanis’ estimable view, Congress “wanted” ZERO lead in the communal toy box. Otherwise, there might be a “perverse” effect on safety. Or so they say.

This is exceptionally unlikely to be true. Interviews with MANY members of Congress over the past two years confirms that “Congress” believed that the CPSIA included a real and workable mechanism for sensible exemptions. Not that anyone thought about the details of this bill for more than a few micro-seconds, but if they did, they thought there was a viable exemption process. Actually, it takes virtually no effort these days to find members of Congress who assert that the CPSIA was a toy bill. Gotta keep ‘em guessing, I suppose.

It must be nice to be able to project your own views onto an entire institution. This is a good way to defect blame. What did Congress “want”? No one can know what that amorphous institution wanted or wants. At this point, the Waxmanis are self-appointed interpreters of the Congressional psyche. In reality, it only matters what “House baron Henry Waxman” wants. In this case, an impotent exemption process is exactly what he wants. The sham also provides him with cover against more skeptical members of Congress. That you can see through it hardly matters – do you actually expect members of Congress to read the law and figure out how it works? Come on!

That’s participatory government for you. Unfortunately, you only think you are participating. Mr. Waxman will let you know when he needs your input. . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – What does "Any" Mean, Anyhow? Waxman Staff Weighs in.

CPSIA – Some ICPHSO Humor

After a day at ICPHSO when

• The General Counsel quizzed the audience perhaps ten times about who was tweeting (my spies indicate that three people tweeted from that session, including me), ribbing us (me?) for letting you know what she was saying. [I blogged live from last year's event, which was noted with shock by some participants.]
• The Chairman instructed us not to believe “Internet rumors” and to only believe websites ending in “dot gov”. You know, you can always believe your government!
• The Chairman told us to stop fighting old battles – in other words, give up, guys!
• The Chairman heralded the work of the Center for Environmental Health, one of the most noxious of the consumer group terrorists active in today’s market. Their tactic of extracting coercive settlements under CA Proposition 65 to set precedent and to fund their activities has been well-documented in this space.
• The looming reality of the public database was shoved in our faces (Tenenbaum: It’s time to get prepared). We confronted the realization that we will be forced to treat every consumer report as an emergency simply because of the database, and
• The Chairman pointed to the Toyota feeding frenzy as the model for future regulatory action on “slow” recalls in this era of populist corporation bashing,

where do you think the ICPHSO planners sent everyone on last night’s social event?

To see “Sheer Madness”, of course!

You have to admit, it was a perfect choice.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Some ICPHSO Humor

CPSIA – Mike Green Attacks Anne Northup in WSJ

In Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, Mike Green of the notorious Center for Environmental Health, a known Proposition 65 bounty hunter, attacked Commissioner Anne Northup for her criticisms of the CPSIA:

“Anne Northup notes that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) passed with bipartisan support, so it is surprising to see her partisan attack on this children’s health protection law (“There Is No Joy in Toyland,” op-ed, Dec. 24). She states that lead in metals used in children’s products is not “bioavailable,” and thus cannot harm children. This will come as a shock to Juanna Graham, whose son died after swallowing a metal charm. At least eight other children have suffered lead poisoning after sucking on or swallowing small lead pieces from toys or jewelry.

Ms. Northup also errs in stating that lead is not absorbable in materials other than paint. Over the past five years we have found high levels of lead in numerous vinyl children’s items, including baby bibs, lunchboxes, rain gear, toys, and others. Independent lab tests showed that lead in these products can wipe off and expose children to unsafe levels of lead.

Michael Green
Executive Director
Center for Environmental Health
Oakland, Calif.”

This is nonsense, of course. It is very important to leave comments on this misleading and manipulative letter at the WSJ.com website. If you click at the link above, you will see a block to leave a comment. I left one and you should, too.

Thank you.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Mike Green Attacks Anne Northup in WSJ

CPSIA – The Lighter Side

On an evening when I find myself particularly humorless, these articles helped me regain some needed perspective:

“Claus in Crisis“, the story of Santa’s mounting regulatory problems. High time that our government stepped up to save us from endangerment by Santa. How did it take this long?

“Let the Toy Paranoia Begin“, a column written by the witty Ryn Gargulinski in which she expresses some “skepticism” over the need to recall shoes with lead in their soles. This person needs some re-education – right, Center for Environmental Health? You alone know what’s best for all of us!

I hope someday that these parodies are more than a source of laughs. It’s healthy to laugh at ourselves, but the truth lurks just beneath the surface. This used to be our country – when will we rise up and take it back?

My suggestion: November 2, 2010.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The Lighter Side