CPSIA – Database Fun and Games

Quote :

CPSIA – Jockeying for Position over the Database

The Washington Post published the latest whitewash on the CPSC public database yesterday entitled “Publicly accessible product safety database hits House roadblock“. In this article, the Post allowed consumer group favorite Rachel Weintraub to publish her own spin of matters: “‘There’s a lot of support for the database, but we don’t know how the dynamic is ultimately going to play out,’ said Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety and senior counsel for Consumer Federation of America. ‘This is really a last-ditch effort by manufacturers to hold on to this great situation they have right now, where information is not getting out to the public.’” [Emphasis added]

Of course, Rachel was simply borrowing a phrase from last week’s New York Times (“Emboldened by a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, manufacturers of toys and other children’s products are making a last-ditch effort to quash new safety regulations that they say are unfair or too onerous”). [Emphasis added] When you have a great phrase, why not use it over and over?!

What’s the truth? Does it even matter anymore? Jennifer Kerr of the Associated Press questions the purported (asserted) value of the database, noting:

“Anyone can submit a “report of harm” to the SaferProducts.gov database. They aren’t required to have first-hand knowledge of the alleged injury or potential defect that could lead to injury. . . . The U.S. government has a similar auto safety database, also available to consumers online, that describes people’s safety complaints in extraordinary detail. It is the government’s principal early warning system intended to alert federal investigators to signs of looming safety problems. Yet despite efforts by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to review consumer complaints before they’re memorialized in the government’s database, an AP review of 750,000 records last year found that the data included complaints about slick pavement during snow, inconsiderate mechanics, paint chips, sloshing gasoline during fill-ups, potholes, dim headlights, bright headlights, inaccurate dashboard clocks and windshield wipers that streak.” [Emphasis added]

This is just what we in the small business community need – a government-sponsored, funded and promoted accumulation of unqualified miscellaneous gripes about our products. Do you think the media will ever take an interest in this stuff? Nah . . . .

And lest we forget, a familiar criticism of the database is that accusations can take a long time to resolve . . . but once posted to the Internet, can never be truly expunged from the permanent record. The year-long DryMax diapers controversy, not to mention the trashing of Toyota braking systems, demonstrate the severe risk U.S. manufacturers and importers face under the database. Imagine the long term damage to those brands if the accusations (subsequently proven false) never died . . . . Notably, Wayne Morris of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers called the new database nothing better than a “blog” because of these design defects.

The Washington Post failed to mention this nuance. Rachel must have forgotten to point it out.

I think it’s also worth considering the gap in how the CPSC describes the purpose and function of the database. Thanks be to Congress, is it clear WHY we have this database? Cheryl Falvey, General Counsel of the CPSC, says it’s a “complaints” database, NOT a “causation” database. She is pinning her interpretation on the disclaimers all over the website that the information on the site has not been proven and may be wrong. In other words, the postings can’t be relied upon. They are only “complaints” under this view. Ms. Falvey used this reasoning to dismiss complaints about process raised by pesky last-ditch manufacturers at last week’s ICPHSO.

Of course, if the postings are really just “complaints”, why did the CPSC name the site “SaferProducts.gov”? Doesn’t sound like a complaint website, does it? A long time ago, I complained about the website name to the person who claims to have coined it. I did not win that one, obviously. The URL includes the media-friendly term “safer” and makes an inescapble connection to Ms. Tenenbaum’s famous remark on website trustworthiness: “Well, to all of you here today, I say don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, except what you read on Web sites that end in dot gov.”

I may not be the only one who thinks this, despite the website’s disclaimers.

This impression is reinforced by Chairman Tenenbaum’s own description of the ideal workings of the database in her keynote speech at last week’s ICPHSO: “I also envision the site empowering consumers to make independent decisions that further their own safety and the safety of their family. If a mom uses the search function on the site, sees a series of reports of harm about a product she bought for her child, and decides to take the product away from her child, while behind the scenes we are working to finalize a recall—that is a good thing in my opinion.“

That sounds like a “causation” database, doesn’t it? The implication is that the mom can rely on the information (it must be true) and besides, doesn’t an injury “incident” mean that a recall is coming soon? My immediate concern is that Ms. Tenenbaum is right – unqualified and unverified complaints on SaferProducts.gov WILL induce consumers to take our products away from children – whether or not a recall is forthcoming. We also know that Ms. Falvey is right – no one knows if the complaints are true – but who will reimburse our losses when the government convinces our customers that the safest course of action is to stop using our product pending a decision that may never be forthcoming . . . because nothing’s wrong.

The Chairman is encouraging consumers to rely on this information – to draw conclusions on the likelihood of future injury. This is even more alarming, given that Ms. Tenenbaum said in Congressional testimony last week that the agency will likely post unverified or inaccurate information to the database. She knows that this information will be faulty. As she said in testimony, “that’s what the rub is”.

That’s the rub, indeed.

I am tired of the rub, indeed.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Jockeying for Position over the Database

CPSIA – On the Database, the Dems Side with the Liars

The vote on the noxious public database rule scheduled for the day before Thanksgiving (November 24) is a foregone conclusion. Says Rachel Weintraub of Consumer Federation of America: “There’s majority support for the proposed rule, which we applaud.” [BNA, "Poised for Database Vote, CPSC Reschedules Meeting at Dissenting Commissioner's Behest "] Says Christine Hines of Public Citizen: “There is nothing they [Nord and Northup] can do about it except yell from the rooftops.” [ibid.]

Let’s not forget, safety is not a partisan issue. Yeah, right.

But it’s true – the Dems control this vote and are going ahead with their rule, damn the consequences. And there will be MANY terrible consequences. I testified about the database last year and laid out many problems (see my testimony here). Industry has in fact pointed out many issues with the database, such as (a) the consequences of inaccurate information, (b) the consequences of manipulative or misleading information posted by trial lawyers or competitors, (c) the irreversibility of damage from adverse publicity, (d) the database as a government-sponsored and administered feeding ground for plaintiffs lawyers, (e) the negative impact of encouraging consumers to disclose problems to a database which withholds information from manufacturers, rather than direct communication, (f) federal government intrusion to replace or supplant private market solutions, (g) the debasement of Constitutionally-guaranteed due process rights and other protections afforded to litigants and possible victims of abuse of government power, and (h) the likelihood that the database will severely punish small businesses while having only marginal impact on the intended targets, mass market companies.

This seems a bit treacherous for something is said to be so “good” for everyone. Is there a problem here with selective hearing?

How do the Dems justify their position? Well, first of all, they don’t need to. Learning at the feet of Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman, the Dem Commissioners know that their voting power is all the justification they need. They have the votes, therefore they have a “mandate” from the voters, right? Why else would a Commissioner state publicly that anecdotes aren’t evidence? Troubling details from little people don’t matter anymore – not if the details might get in the way of the “agenda”.

The Dems and their allies also hide behind the NHTSA vehicle defects database. I find this so interesting because the ever-attentive CPSC heard testimony that debunked this example (same hearing that I testified in a year ago). The NHTSA example can be distinguished in many significant ways: (a) auto accidents are a leading cause of death in this country (consumer products are not), (b) every use of automobiles is known to be hazardous (not true for consumer products), (c) the auto industry is one of the largest components of our entire economy – we all use cars and many of us owe our livelihoods to automobiles one way or the other (the average sale of consumer products is far less than a car), and (d) the industry is highly consolidated among a relatively small number of massive companies that are quite well-prepared for litigation and regulatory issues (consumer products is not a consolidated market). General Motors went public today, completing its recovery from bankruptcy and its $60 billion bailout. I think GM and other automakers can handle the burden and risk of a database of deaths and serious injuries from use of their products. Learning Resources, on the other hand, ain’t no GM or Toyota. The NHTSA database sets an inappropriate example for consumer products for all of the foregoing reasons.

Providing further cover is the Rogue’s Gallery of leftist consumer advocates who spin yarns to support the decisions of the Dem Commissioners. Many of their assertions are bald-faced lies.

Example No. 1: “‘Right now, people can’t easily find out about products that they may buy or that they use every day with their family,’ said Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety for the Consumer Federation of America. ‘This database will provide consumers with credible, accurate information.’”

This is two lies by Rachel Weintraub. First lie – consumers “can’t easily find out about products”. Really? I recently wrote about consumer comments on Amazon for a product that was recalled – is that so hard to find? What about ConsumerSearch.com? ePinions.com? Consumer Reports Forums? All the large volume online retailers allow consumer to post reviews. I think it’s certainly true that consumer exchange of information online is both plentiful and easy to find. I also think it’s also a matter of opinion whether the federal government should a role to play here in this exercise of free speech – particularly if in the process, the government tramples on Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of due process of other members of our community.

Second lie (more glaring): “This database will provide consumers with credible, accurate information.” This is a doozie. From Section 1102.42 of the proposed rule: “The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of the Consumer Product Safety Information Database, particularly with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of information submitted by persons outside of the CPSC. The Consumer Product Safety Information Database will contain a notice to this effect that will be prominently and conspicuously displayed on the Database and on any documents that are printed from the Database.” [Emphasis added] On the other hand, perhaps Rachel is on to something – by publishing unverified and untrustworthy data on a government-run database, it will certainly LOOK credible and accurate! Practically the same thing these days . . . .

I would observe that while this disclaimer is going to be widely posted on the database, the name of the site is SaferProducts.org. What does this name imply to you? I take away that (1) I should be scared of dangerous products, (2) this website is where I can find out the “truth”, and (3) thank heavens for my government for making me safer (let’s increase the CPSC budget!). Ahem – I thought the CPSC does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information in the database so why is the website called “SaferProducts”? Should I feel “safer”? Was I supposed to feel endangered before? That’s the idea, kids.

But if Rachel says the postings are credible and accurate, there’s nothing to worry about, right? Provides some nice cover for our leaders . . . .

Example No. 2: Says Ami Gadhia of Consumers Union: “Commission staffers have worked very hard to ensure that the database is fair to everyone.”

Someone please define “worked very hard” and “ensure” for me. Please watch my testimony again and tell me what protections CPSC staffers designed for ME.

I interpret Ms. Gadhia’s lie as connoting that “fair” to her views is tantamount to “fair to everyone”. My interests don’t matter. Besides, Rachel is sure everything will be credible and accurate. That sounds fair . . . even if it’s completely untrue.

Example No. 3: Says Rachel Weintraub: “Every effort has been made to ensure that the information is accurate. . . . Otherwise, the database won’t be useful to anyone.”

Every effort, huh? Manufacturers don’t get to talk to the person who files the report or to the victim or see photos or samples submitted. Only our government can be trusted with that information for reasons not clear to me. The carefully “vetted” reports must be sent out within five days to manufacturers. We live in a country with 300 million people. Are you telling me that the agency is going to carefully “vet” the reports we inundate them with in just five days? Perhaps they need hire a few hundred more highly-trained associates to push this paper.

You are more than welcome to read the proposed final rule to learn about the agency’s proposed procedure to “ensure that the information is accurate”. Read Section 1102.10 (page 227 in this 248-page document). But I think I can save you some time. The filer has to confirm that he’s not lying (“A submitter of a report of harm must affirmatively verify that he or she has reviewed the report of harm, and that the information contained therein is true and accurate to the best of the submitter’s knowledge, information, and belief”). That’s certainly foolproof. Among the various required redactions and other agency “oversight” of this data, you will NOT find anything like an investigation. They are simply scrubbing and re-publishing someone else’s allegations. Under their procedures, they cannot possibly know if what they are publishing is true or false.

No wonder they disclaim accuracy, completeness or accuracy.

Example No. 4: Christine Hines of Public Citizen (from BNA): “She added that several hearings, workshops, and comment opportunities have provided the public and industry every opportunity to address concerns. ‘Industry has participated fully in the entire process.’”

We, the regulated community, have had “every opportunity” to “address” our concerns. This apparently constitutes participating “fully in the entire process”. This is much more than spin, this is another flat-out lie. You cannot assert that we have participated fully if we have been utterly ignored. The hearings were not for VENTING. As previously noted, Matt Howsare asked me to spend our company’s money to fly to Washington to testify on this database – and then blew off every point I made. Small business concerns were almost explicitly disregarded. We cannot be said to have had “every opportunity” to address our concerns if the impact on small business could be sloughed off. Was Nancy Nord afforded “every opportunity” when she was gaveled silent in the hearing on the database?

This one isn’t a lie: [from BNA:] “[Weintraub] said the CFA, like Public Citizen, supports the current version. ‘We think [the database rule] strikes the right balance between Congress’s intent and making the database usable while protecting manufacturers’ interests,’ Weintraub told BNA. The substitute rule would ‘limit the utility of the database for other consumers and public health professionals in terms of unnecessarily limiting who can report,’ as well as including other limiting provisions, she said.”

Why isn’t that a lie, too? Because she states that it is her opinion. She’s wrong – but at least she’s not lying this time.

The poison in the CPSIA is actually the handiwork of a small and energetic group of individuals, many of whom are featured here. They hide behind consumer-friendly sounding corganization names but are actually just troglodyte anti-business advocates. They are no less cartoonish than the way they portray us, but with the Dems running the CPSC, the “good intentions” of this group and the persuasive power of their phobias have the upper hand.

As all the consumer advocates say, the outcome here is hardly in doubt. But feel good about it – you have had “every opportunity” to address your concerns and have “participated fully” in the entire process.

Empty words and lies. That’s what this mess has become.

Read more here:
CPSIA – On the Database, the Dems Side with the Liars

CPSIA – Vote on Database DELAYED

The CPSC Commission vote on the public database scheduled for tomorrow has been delayed until the day before Thanksgiving (November 24th). Talk about Turkey Day . . . .

We have seen delays like this in the past. These pauses generally reflect infighting among the Commissioners. Don’t be fooled by the squabbling – it doesn’t mean that any light bulbs are going on. The Commissioners know exactly what they’re doing when they install a database gift wrapped for trial lawyers. The Democratic majority and Republican minority may be on different sides but neither group is dumb – they don’t buy the baloney that the leftist consumer advocates fling around – they know it isn’t “extremely difficult” to keep your family safe from “dangerous products”, they know that American consumers have many ways and places to share negative experiences with products online, they know that this venue will be an abasement of basic due process rights of manufacturers. They get it – they know they will be sending us down the river when they adopt this rule.

The difference is that the Republicans don’t want to send us down the river. The Dems show absolutely NO SIGN of caring. The outcome of the vote is certain. So is the eventual loss of more jobs.

So what’s the point of the delay? Why not just get it over with? The extra week gives them more time to bicker among themselves. Perhaps that gives the appearance of dialogue and “debate”. Then they will pull the trigger.

You can guess where the bullet will go.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Vote on Database DELAYED

CPSIA – Tune in to Fox News on Monday AM

790 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 20 days left until Election Day.

I am scheduled to appear on Fox News “Fox & Family” program on Monday at 6:15 AM EST to discuss the CPSIA and my involvement in politics as a means to address our many CPSIA problems.

Let’s set some Nielsen ratings records for Fox on Monday!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Tune in to Fox News on Monday AM

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.

GUEST BLOG – Jolie Fay’s Story

I was not sure what all to tell. Narrowing down the story to a blog, or even a short conversation has been a challenge.

Do I mention that we are not “unintended consequences” but rather, “collateral damage”?

Do I bring up the seniors I help who are so old they do chair Tia-chi, who can afford lunch only when they can make it to the senior center, but have made wooden trucks for 40 years?

Do I bring up the fact that with NO notice to this cottage industry we are forced in the middle of the supply chain to test our products because large toy companies were breaking an already existing law?

Too much…too much to tell, so this is what I wrote. Just my story.

In November 2008 I learned about the CPSIA.

I thought that was the beginning of my journey with this law, but I realize now that my journey began when I was seven years old and participating in my first craft show with my mom. I was selling anything I could make, mostly small animals I had made from pom-poms, felt, glue and little googley eyes. Before age 12, I added to my “line” a small army of “pet rocks,” cats cradle kits, quilt patches, purses, and many, many other kids’ crafts.

When planning my family, I decided to start a business that would allow me to stay at home with my children. I started with what I knew, crafty-ness, sewing skills and some of my favorite memories of my childhood, reinvented. One thing lead to another, and before my daughter was a year old I had a business that would eventually help us buy a house in San Francisco.

Time passed, my business grew and so did my family. It was amazing being there to watch both of my daughters take their VERY first steps on their own, to be the one they turned to when they got hurt, to be their mother. I loved being there, and I knew I would not be in that situation without the money from my little on-line business.

We sold our house in San Francisco and moved to Portland, Oregon in March 2008. At the time, my business was strong. My line was growing and investing in my business seemed like the right move. My husband agreed and we invested a large portion of the profits from selling our house into my business.

I bought supplies and began production. When I bought the supplies, what I was making was legal to sell, but in August 2008, unbeknownst to me at the time, my life was taking a U-turn.

By November 2008 we felt the effects of the sluggish economy, but my business was still surviving and I felt optimistic about our future

Then I got the email: “if you make ANY products for kids, this law [CPSIA] affects you!”

I have to admit I ignored the first 20 or so emails, because I could not believe that my little sew-in-my-basement business was being forced into the same regulations as Mattel without any warning. As the days went on, and the number of emails I received grew, I realized my dream was crashing around me.

I called the lab, got the quote and did the math. CPSIA-mandated testing costs for my little product line was over $27,000 for just over $30,000 worth of product. I cannot express the horrible feeling I had when I realized that I had made a mistake that was going to cost my family all of our money. In the business world, companies recover. In my case, I WAS the company and what family can recover from a loss that huge? I was not only losing my investment, but I was also losing my source of income.

With the February 10, 2009 deadline to comply with the new lead standard only weeks away, the panic took over and I was fighting with everything I had to reach someone who would help make this nightmare go away.

I found a group of people nearby who were renting an XRF scanner, and I rented it for 24 hours. I tested every single item, every color way, every button style, every fabric piece, every color and style of trim…I tested in my tiny basement, next to my washer and dryer, for 15 hours. I was driven by a fear that I cannot describe. I needed to know that when I called every person in DC that I could think of, I could be certain that I had a product that was safe in March 2008 and continued to be safe, even though I did not have $27,000 to test my products to prove it.

I would wake up at 5am Portland time, to begin calling everyone imaginable in Washington, DC — any number I could find. I had never been politically active before and had NO IDEA how things worked. I genuinely believed that some Congressman would take my call and realize that a mistake had been made. I would start to tell my story, pacing between my washing machine and computer, crying to these aids who would reply “Thank you for your call. I will pass your message on.” I could just feel the rolling of their eyes and bored posture as I was begging them to let me talk to someone who could help me.

By 8 am, when my girls were up, I would be so emotionally drained and my spirit was crushed. I did this for weeks and it was truly one of the most painful times of my life.

The days passed, the fight went on. I would ask these aides and CPSC staffers “what do I do? Should I just throw it all away?” and their response would be “I cannot tell you what to do.” I was begging for help and they would only give me “I cannot tell you what to do.”.

Eventually the CPSC did issue some rulings that prevented my having to throw all my products in the garbage. However, these rulings were to few and too infrequent. CPSIA is going to doom my business. The testing costs, the paperwork, the liability and for what? Will my products be
any safer? No, instead there will be no products.

I have invested thousands of hours in trying to get the CPSIA changed to allow crafters – young and old – to continue their craft. The time I spent trying to bring common sense to the CPSIA was time I was not investing in my business. I was afraid to let up the fight because I was not seeing anyone else fighting for ME.

Where was my Senator, who told the crowd “folks, we did this for safety”?

Where was the ombudsman to help guide the way at the CPSC? (Surprise! There STILL is not a position at the CPSC to help the crafters, the stay-at-home moms who use skill and time to help feed their kids).

Where were the Congressmen who represent me and the seniors who have made SAFE children’s products for 50 years, and who can barely afford lunch and would NEVER be able to afford testing?

Who is looking out for the children who will learn from their mothers how to nurture their entrepreneurial spirit?

Last July I hit bottom. I had to turn my children over to daycare workers and join the work force just to keep us in our tiny rented house. My little business that helped us buy a home, that kept me at home with my kids to help them learn and grow, was no longer a safe investment of my time.

This is happening all across the county; women just like me, who are making safe kids’ products, are being forced to end their stay-at-home businesses. Mothers who want to obey the law, who are afraid of the consequences of NOT obeying the law, are making the choice to give up their dream to keep their children warm and fed.

We need a law that does not make us criminals. We MUST have a law that does not criminalize the old, young, and poor because they make safe products that they cannot afford to test.

On the second day of after-school care, I went to pick up my 5 year old daughter from school and the “teacher” pulled us aside as we were leaving. She said, “Jane had a tough day today, she did not want to be here. She wanted to be with her mom.” The “teacher” continued, “I am a grandmother and I know how to deal with this, so I took her by the hand and walked her to the mirror and said, ‘Jane, look at your face. Look at how UGLY you look when you cry.’”

I blame every one of the Energy and Commerce legislative staffers for the emotional injury to my daughter that day. She should be home with me, being raised by a mother who believes in the American spirit of hard work, integrity, and honesty.

She should be home with me while I continue my business of making safe children’s products.

She should be home with me, making pet rocks (illegal to sell today) and having fun making pom-pom animals with her mother – like the ones we used to sell at the local Saturday market.

My daughter is the CPSIA casualty of the week.

Blog post written by Jolie Fay, founder of Skipping Hippos clothing (www.skippinghippos.com) in Portland, OR and a
Board Member of the Handmade Toy Alliance

Read more here:
GUEST BLOG – Jolie Fay’s Story

CPSIA – ICPHSO Update -Remarks of Chairman Inez Tenenbaum

Inez Tenenbaum gave a keynote address at lunch at ICPHSO today. I would have preferred to rely on the actual text of the speech before writing about it (not yet available online at the CPSC website), but wanted to give you my impressions quickly. If I took erroneous notes, I apologize and will correct errors, if any, later.

Critical points from the speech:

• The speech was tough and hostile to “uncooperative” businesses.
• She gave plugs to Consumers Union, PIRG and CEH. Draw your own conclusions. She balanced those plugs with a hearty pat on the back for RILA which she said has proposed its own uniform testing “problem”. Oops, Freudian slip . . . she corrected herself to clarify that it is actually a uniform testing program. Program, problem – these are synonyms at the new CPSC.
• She wants to dispel the “rumor” that the agency is overwhelmed by mandates and is distracted from its mission. Further to this point, with regard to Internet “rumors” like the foregoing, she recommends that you only believe websites that end in “dot gov”.

Let me repeat that last one: Tenenbaum says you should ONLY believe websites that end in “dot gov”. That means you shouldn’t believe me, just her. Don’t be cynical, guys. Speaking for myself, when a high public official tells me not to believe the media chatter, just to believe them, I always take the heartfelt advice. After all, they only mean to protect me from scurrilous gossip that I am too dumb to figure out for myself. For instance, I still believe everything John Edwards says . . . .

• Regarding recalls involving a death, Tenenbaum warned companies NOT to blame parents in the press even if they are involved in litigation with the family. If they do, Tenenbaum promised (in strong terms) to “call [them] out”. I was floored by this. Is she our mother now? Our mother government, perhaps.
• She urged us to “stop fighting old battles” and get prepared. She was referring to the new era of the Public Database. Hmmm. We are to stop fighting old battles. Okay, everyone, put down your arms!
• She reiterated that the CPSIA was the “most substantial and positive” development in the CPSC’s (recent) history. She noted her love of the tracking labels provision and the removal of lead from zippers. Apparently my many comments and objections to tracking labels were ALL wrong. Darn! I must learn to love tracking labels. Repeat five hundred times, I must learn to love . . . .
• On the subject of voluntary standards, she emphasized that if industry doesn’t move fast to do it the CPSC’s way, the agency will just put out mandatory standards more to its liking. She specifically cited the JPMA and ASTM on the crib standards. She sounds really open-minded on that one. Tenenbaum also recommends that industries proactively make their standards more stringent so the agency can make them MANDATORY. Or . . . the agency will just do it itself. Nice! I feel trust building, building, building.
• She noted that the law applies to big and small companies ALIKE “for good reason”. Hey, crafters, get the message – there will no free pass for you. Of course, this actually makes sense because product injuries should not be okay simply because the manufacturer is small. The way to fix things for small companies is to rework the definition of hazard to be limited to ACTUAL hazards only, which will focus safety efforts in a logical fashion, thereby helping out the small guys. The crafters are a victim not of fair rules that are blind to small business interests – but instead of a terrible law that is so fatally flawed that no business can deal with it.

Here’s the best part:

1. Chairman Tenenbaum said that she won’t tolerate resistance to recalls that the agency wants to make. If you do dare resist, the agency will use its many tools to force the “right” outcome. Chairman of the CPSC or Chairman of the Politburo? Individual rights and due process are apparently a secondary consideration now, to judge from Tenenbaum’s fiery speech. There’s a big incentive to invest, right?
2. Tenenbaum cited Toyota as an example of how “this government” will NOT tolerate slow recalls. Oh boy. Think of the Toyota food fight when you imagine the future of CPSIA enforcement. Recall first, ask questions later and let the media sort out the details. And be sure to bring the mighty down low. That sounds so fair!

There are many industries that are going to be victimized by this new enforcement regime. The list will be LONG.

Lots of tough talk, saber rattling and scare tactics. Of particular concern is the implicit erosion in corporate legal rights and the continuing demonization of businesses and business people. The Obamist populist rhetoric was quite recognizable, and one must wonder who Tenenbaum really intended to reach with the speech. Whoever they are, I hope they were happy. As for me, I got the willies and thought that whatever progress I sensed earlier today was an illusion.

Will the Dems ever learn?

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update -Remarks of Chairman Inez Tenenbaum

CPSIA – Does the CPSC Have a Clear Mission These Days?

In my recent post on the CPSC’s latest lead compliance guidance, I observed that the agency differentiates regulation of known childhood hazards by the “intent” of the product’s maker, irrespective of the physical effect of the hazard on children. This rather shocking development derives from the awful CPSIA, where the marketing intent of a product is used to determine if the product is inside or outside the new restrictions. Safety be damned?

For this reason, a ballpoint pen (a “pen”) is okay, unregulated and untested as to lead if it is not “primarily” intended for children. If a pen is “primarily” intended for children, it needs to be proven lead-free (within the new standards, okay). Notably, all children use pens. Thus, we can safely assume there are two kinds of pens used by children: (a) those primarily intended for children (the smaller set of pens) and (b) those NOT primarily intended for children (the larger set of pens). The CPSC is only interested in testing and regulating the smaller set, the ones primarily intended for children – this in spite of the fact that the agency knows that the unregulated larger set is used universally and in high numbers by children. In theory, the pens in both sets could be identical – and it wouldn’t matter. Conclusion: the “new” CPSC is all about enforcement (which pens are regulated and which are not?) and NOT about safety (which pens are actually safe and which are not?). This is truly sad – for American consumers (including me and my family).

How did this happen?

The law pushed us here, and the new leadership at the CPSC, led by Inez Tenenbaum, was only too enthusiastic to take us along for the ride. The new CPSC outlook appears to be that the CPSIA defines safety and ergo, vigorous enforcement of the law makes everyone “safer”. If the law proscribes a product, a feature or a use, it is unsafe, and barring compelling evidence to the contrary, if the law doesn’t proscribe the product, feature or use, it’s safe. That’s it. Turning back to the astounding pen decision, the rationality of the CPSC’s position is therefore dependent on the CPSC having NO information suggesting that pens present a danger to children from lead. This makes it possible for them to say that it’s fine to sell unregulated pens to kids. Of course, it also means that they are knowingly outlawing something that they KNOW is safe (pens primarily intended for children). They just don’t want to admit it.

Ah, that’s the rub, isn’t it? They won’t admit that their mission has been terribly distorted by this law. They want to pretend that, in fact, they are still the champions of safety. [Ed. Note: In many ways, the CPSC remains a great champion of safety. The implementation of the CPSIA is NOT one of those ways.] How far will they go to assert moral high ground as the CPSIA police rather than as an agency with a safety mission first and foremost?

Earlier today, the Grand Haven Tribune posted (yet another) article about the ill-effects of the CPSIA. This time the article focused on the dilemma faced by small cottage industries and handcrafters under the new safety law. Consider the quotes from the CPSC spokesperson in light of our discussion:

“‘This law is intended to make products safer for children because there are too many incidents where children have ingested too much lead,’ said Kathleen Reilly, public affairs specialist for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. ‘There are many, many products that contain lead. So this takes a look at preventing that.’ With the product safety act, the commission plans to significantly reduce the total lead content in products from 600 parts per million to 100 ppm by August 2011. Products now must not contain more than 300 ppm, according to the act. ‘We’re not trying to put people out of business,’ Reilly said. ‘But there has to be safer standards for children’s products. . . . We’re not out to get anyone. . . . We’re just following the law to make sure people at home who make children’s products make safe products. How do you know whether or not it’s safe if it’s never been tested?’”

So, the CPSC says that the standards are needed to stop “too many incidents” where children have ingested “too much lead”. From toys, hairbows and clothing – or from lead paint on the walls of their homes or by ingesting lead in dirt? The new CPSC shockingly does not distinguish among these sources of lead – it just reads the law, enforces it . . . AND then justifies it. The assertion that we have a widespread lead poisoning problem from children’s products is the justification, however fantastic and faulty. I would like to point out that the notorious lead-in-paint recalls of 2007/8 resulted in ONE reported injury and ZERO deaths over 25 months. Hmmm.

The agency continues its justifications with the implication the agency believes and believed that “safer standards” were necessary. Is it true that the CPSC went to Congress to ASK for these new standards? Did they testify in favor of the tighter standards, saying that they were necessary to stop a public health crisis? Did the CPSC Staff rise up and demand that standards be tightened? The answers are no, no and no. However, Ms. Reilly’s remark makes a good sound bite and it makes the agency’s enforcement policy sound appropriate and necessary.

The worst of this string of justifications is her assertion “How do you know whether or not [a toy is] safe if it’s never been tested?” Where did Ms. Reilly come up with this one? I was not aware that the CPSC actually believed the old chestnut that it is appropriate to assume the worst about products unless manufacturers preemptively test. Say, this sounds faintly familiar . . . yes, it’s coming back to me . . . . Anyone remember this quote: “Businesses’ assertion that they’re having to test products they know are safe is absurd. You only know if a product is safe if it’s been tested.” [Emphasis added] The author: Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety for the Consumers Federation of America in the Wall Street Journal on September 10. In other words, the CPSC has adopted the consumer groups’ rationalization for the CPSIA to justify their emphasis of enforcement over safety.

Ironically, the coherence of the CPSC’s new message is destroyed by the fact that items outside the regulation (such as pens not intended for children) won’t be tested but may be used widely by children. Are they still “safe”? Go on, CPSC, chase your tail!

The mission at the CPSC used to be safety. A product, component, material or use was evaluated for risk, and it was regulated only if it presented a harm. Now Congress has fobbed off a dangerous defective law on the CPSC, installed an enforcement-first Chairman, who in turn ramped up the agency’s PR machine to make the new police force look like a safety patrol. In fact, the new leadership seems obsessed with enforcement and rarely asks about actual safety when discussing products affected by the CPSIA. When thinking about brass or about pens, does the subject even come up? Do I need to remind you of the rhinestones fiasco? The agency solves this problem with its “public affairs specialists”, employed to lull the public into submission with the tranquilizer that we always needed this excessive regulation. . . . That makes it all okay!

I am disappointed in myself that I am even somewhat surprised by all this. After all, history is written by the victors and in this case, the Democrats put their people in charge and told them what to do. The retelling of the safety story has begun, and in the process the 37-year mission of the agency is being obliterated before our very eyes. Ironically, I feel strongly that this will end in Americans being less safe, not more.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Does the CPSC Have a Clear Mission These Days?

CPSIA – Tenenbaum Challenge Update!

It’s been two days, and still no reply from the CPSC on my rhinestone challenge. Next time I think my challenges need a time limit. Since I have had two more days to think about rhinestones, I have another challenge for Ms. Tenenbaum: Provide ONE example of a child (not deranged) that has accidentally or inappropriately ingested 50 of anything since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620. I don’t think it’s happened in the United States EVER. [ Non sequitur : There is a Plymouth Rock in Wisconsin and when my kids were younger, I used to ask them to tell me how the Pilgrims managed to land in the middle of Wisconsin of all places. Imagine the surprise . . . . Okay, I guess I give hard challenges at times.] I was discussing the dilemma of rhinestone-eating children with my brother-in-law who is an Emergency Room Physician. He noted that in his 22-year career, he has seen only ONE case of a child ingesting more than one object, namely two quarters. He does see many cases of childhood ingestion of a single object (typically, a coin, spring or a paperclip – no mention of rhinestones but then again, he’s only been on the look-out for 22 years). He said that the only cases of multiple foreign body ingestion he sees is pills. I guess the Hot Dog Eating Champ must not have gotten his start in bracelets or earrings. This got me to thinking . . . . I poked around on the Internet to see what statistics I could find on foreign body ingestion by kids. I didn’t want to be embarrassed by the sudden appearance of statistics that showed that children regularly chow down on bracelets, rings and necklaces laced with “dangerous” rhinestones, or that they suck the jewels off their jeans and shoes with regularity. Turns out the Internet is chock-a-block with data on this topic. Interesting . . . . Here’s data from “Foreign-Body Ingestion in Children: Experience With 1,265 Cases”, Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Vol. 10, No. 10 (October, 1999), pp. 1472-1476 (I paid $31.50 to bring you this exciting news): Table 1. The Categorization of Foreign Bodies Ingested by Children Coins : 271 cases (49% of cases) Fish bones : 155 cases (28 %) Metallic objects : 78 cases (14%) [7 batteries, 41 sharp objects (needles, pins, screws, and wires), 30 blunt objects (keys, metal caps)] Other bones : 16 cases (2.9%) [8 chicken bones, 7 pork bones. 1 duck bone] Rubber and plastic material : 10 cases (1.8 %) Glass objects : 7 cases (1.3%) [2 glass objects, 5 glass marbles] Others : 15 cases (2.7%) [3 (shrimp &crab shell), 1 seed, 1 ginger, 1 denture, 2 wooden material, 7 unknown objects ] Total: 552 cases (100 %) This data summarizes the cases with endoscopically or radiologically proven foreign body ingestion. The study covered a period from 1964 to 1997 in one tertiary referral center. No jewels mentioned in the article. Hmmm. Another article (” Guideline for the management of ingested foreign bodies ” from American Society For Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 55, No. 7, 2002, pp. 802-806) notes: “The majority of foreign body ingestions occur in the pediatric population with a peak incidence between ages 6 months and 6 years. In adults, true foreign object ingestion occurs more commonly among those with psychiatric disorders, mental retardation, or impairment caused by alcohol, and those seeking some secondary gain with access to a medical facility. Ingestion of multiple foreign objects and repeated episodes are not uncommon. Edentulous adults are also at greater risk for foreign body ingestion, including of their dental prosthesis.” In other words, crazy adults will eat multiples, but not kids. This article mentioned coins and batteries, but did not address jewels or jewelry. Yet another article points to coins and chicken and fish bones as the most common childhood ingestion objects. The American Family Physician, a publication of the American Academy of Family Physicians has an information sheet about accidental ingestion – again, no special mention of jewels or swallowing 50 of anything. There’s a lot of articles out there which provide consistent data. This gets even more interesting if you check out Ms. Tenenbaum’s citations in her statement supporting her vote to reject the exclusion request on rhinestones, crystals and glass beads. From her statement: “Moreover, emergency room data collected through NEISS shows that jewelry is one of the top five items ingested by children.” Wow, that’s a shocker, isn’t it? In my house, the top five items ingested by children are potato chips, bagels, pop tarts, hamburgers and fries. I thought I would check out the NEISS data, just for kicks. One CDC report summarizes the data as follows: of 17,537 choking incidents among children under 14 years of age in 2001, the percentages break down as follows: 29.6% Solid Food, 19.0% Candy/Gum, 18.7% Other Non-Food, 12.7% Coins, 9.0% Unknown, 7.6% Liquids, 3.4% Unspecified Food. The category including jewelry is Other Non-Food, which is described as “Includes toys, marbles, balloons, puzzle pieces, paper, pen caps, tape, screws and other hardware, keys, plastic, cellophane, plants, rocks, jewelry, hair accessories, soda can tabs, and other specified nonfood items”. Hmmm. Seems quite unlikely that jewelry is the fifth largest category of ingested items. Another report from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hinted that the NEISS data Ms. Tenenbaum may have been referring to was from 2000-2005. You can’t run a query on six years of data at once on NEISS. I ran a query for 2005 to see what I would find. The number of ingestion incidents reported were 2205. The number of incidents coded to jewelry (class 1616) was 125 or 5.7%. This is similar to the data provided by the Massachusetts report (6.6%) so I decided lazily to accept it as directionally representative of the data apparently used by Ms. Tenenbaum. Of the 125 cases, however, 30 were for kids 6-22 months old, 41 for kids 2-6 years old. 15 for kids 7-12 and the balance for older kids through adults. Thus, the number of cases reported in 2005 for the targeted 0-6 age group was not 5.7% but instead 71/2205 or 3.2%. The data is difficult to interpret, although there are short case descriptions for each line of data. I would guess with high confidence that many (if not most) of the 71 target market cases are either beads (not relevant here but classified as jewelry all the same) or adult jewelry (several cases of swallowing nose rings and tongue rings). Many of the reported cases are not certain but noted simply as “possible” swallowings – and thus cannot be rigorously considered part of the “hard” data. This is consistent with the other literature that discusses ingestion of foreign bodies – many cases cannot be confirmed. For this reason, I strongly doubt that 3.2% of all ingestion cases in 2005 can be fairly applied as evidence supporting a ban on rhinestones. There were apparently no cases of a child eating a drawer full of jewelry in 2005, either. Notably, there were a couple cases of a child actually swallowing a bracelet. I guess it’s possible. Anyhow, the data does not support the likelihood of a child EVER ingesting 50 rhinestones. It is farfetched. The conclusion I reach is that any contention that swallowing 50 rhinestones is a real risk or a real health problem is simple nonsense. It is offensive to me that our regulators are using data they may not understand or which is “dirty” (muddied with inappropriate or irrelevant entries, tending to mislead the viewer of the data). Given the apparently ridiculously low or nonexistent risk of swallowing 50 rhinestones, the CPSC safety regulators seem to be defending their legal conclusion simply for its consistency with the CPSIA but dressing it up with misleading fear mongering data to make it appear that they are actually making a rational decision. This may please Mr. Waxman and the consumer groups who apparently think the business community is evil, but it is wrong. As I said in an earlier post , this approach may bring short term benefits to the agency, but in the long run, the sacrifice of integrity and reputation will be extremely costly to all concerned. If I am mistaken, Ms. Tenenbaum, please correct me.

Excerpt from:
CPSIA – Tenenbaum Challenge Update!