CPSIA – My Testimony at the CPSC Hearing on 100 ppm Lead Standard 2-16-11

Here are clips from my testimony at the CPSC Hearing on 100 ppm Lead Standard on February 16, 2011. As noted in previous blogposts, there’s much more to see and hear in this panel discussion. The clips focus on me and my testimony. I admire the testimony of the other panelists and especially the quality of the dialogue after the testimony under questioning by the Commission. If you want to see it unedited, check out the full video at the CPSC website.

I have already published the links from the morning session. Viewing those clips before watching these clips may help you understand the flow of the argument better.

My full testimony:

[Notably, Ms. Tenenbaum cut me a break and let me go over my 10 minute allotment. I appreciate that courtesy.]

Commissioner Bob Adler questions me on the future of small business under the CPSIA and the need for the Commission to “follow the law” and implement the new standard despite the known consequences. This may be the most interesting interchange on the troubling issues under the CPSIA that I have participated in over the past four years. Check it out!

Commissioner Anne Northup asks about the ability of small business to obtain exemptions from the lead standard:

Commissioner Nancy Nord questions me about recycled materials, the cost implications of the new standards and injuries:

My call for a Five Year Stay on the new lead standard to allow for development of real injury statistics:

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Testimony at the CPSC Hearing on 100 ppm Lead Standard 2-16-11

CPSIA – ICPHSO Update on Recall Law and Procedures

This panel discusses technical legal issues. You need to hire a lawyer to explore these issues. This blog is not a substitute for qualified legal representation. As previously noted, I am working off my notes, too. Please proceed with due and appropriate caution.

Panel included

• Eric Stone, K&L Gates LLP
• Georgia Ravitz, Arent Fox LLC
• David Baker, Law Offices of David Baker LLC

Eric Stone: Section 15(a) of CPSA limits the agency’s authority to pursue only items presenting a substantial risk of injury or death. The agency has the right to sue for the same thing under Section 15(c) (mandatory recalls, very rare).

The prior law allowed manufacturers to elect the form of recall program. The CPSIA changed that, and gives the CPSC the authority to make those choices now.

Under Section 15(j), the agency can make a “substantial product hazard” findings across an entire product category, essentially by way of rulemaking. There are certain prerequisites to taking this action. The poster child for this is drawstrings in hoodies.

New violations of law INCLUDES reselling recalled items EVEN IF it was wholly voluntary or initiated entirely by the company without CPSC judgment. That recall is also enforceable in 51 jurisdictions. [Something to think about before you climb on the Fast Track Recall freight train . . . .] False statements or “attempting to mislead” the CPSC has dramatic implications under the new law. Don’t go there . . . .

New penalty factors include a failure of the violator to respond “in a timely or complete fashion to the CPSC’s requests for information and immediate action”. Hmmm. Felony penalties now include asset forfeiture. Yep, that baby’s raising its head again. In theory, the government can take your assets which it believes you have gotten through ill-gotten gains, like your house, your business, your buildings or plant. Hmmm. Love that CPSIA . . . .

David Baker:

1. “Substantial Product Hazard” – no definition in the statute or in the legislative history. CPSC and the courts (Mirama Enterprises case) have interpreted it. Factors include death, grievous bodily injury (mutilation, dismemberment, severe burns, injuries likely to require extensive hospitalization). He asserts that MANY of the recalls initiated last year do NOT meet this standard. [RW: Where have I heard that before???] More than 1/3 of recalls do not involve injury AT ALL and many of the others fall far short of “grievous bodily injuries”. DB: Should the CPSC be taking these cases? Should they simply say thanks for the report but no action is required?
2. Fast Track versus Slow Track – Express lane to a press release. No “finding” of a defect, possibly helpful in a product liability case. Fast Track cases aren’t always so “fast”. Are there cases in FT that because they have no injuries shouldn’t be there? Is there still a slow track?
3. Penalty phase – “NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED.” Every recall files is reviewed by the General Counsel’s office for late reporting, including those without injuries. There are MANY civil penalty cases being prosecuted out there now. [This could be you, baby.] Is the CPSC going after its own constituency? There is a very accomplished ex-U.S. Attorney now on staff at the CPSC (I think he is referring to Mary Murphy).

Ouch.

Last to present is Georgia Ravitz on Section 6(b) (unilateral press releases by the CPSC and their coercive power). Information that manufacturers submit to the CPSC are protected from disclosure to the public. Section 6(b) is the section governing procedures for releasing such information. [This is why Sectionn 6(b) is continually under attack by consumer groups. Their need for information trumps the interest of manufacturers in this confidentiality pledge. . . or at least so they say.]

CPSIA amendments to Section 6(b) gives the agency the right to issue unilateral press releases. The CPSC must “find” that the situation is so urgent that public interest in immediate release of information about a product hazard over the time permitted for review under Section 6(b).

Gives examples of such unilateral releases. The first one related to Simplicity bassinets. [They were already bankrupt and their assets had been auctioned off.] Other examples include the Witco “Recall to Repair” stadium light poles. GR notes that there is some concern that this release evidenced the CPSC acting in a rushed manner.

GR wondered aloud whether the right to preemptively issue press releases is being used “appropriately”. [Georgia is very polite.] She quotes from the legislative record to note that Congress wanted to give the CPSC the ability to inform the public about “hazardous products”. In other words, there must be certainty that the product is actually hazardous. She quoted from a speech from Chairman Tenenbaum where she indicated that the agency will use its powers to get its way, and then quoted from my December 2010 Senate testimony on coercive incidents at the agency. . . .

GR says that if the new powers under 6(b) are being used to coerce agreement, then the provision is being misused or being used in a way not intended by Congress. [I agree.] Coercion stifles meaningful dialogue. She thinks this provision should be used as a last resort and only use when there is no responsible party left (bankruptcy) or when the violator is clearly abusing the process through foot dragging.

GR calls for a return to “the way it used to be”, namely a more open and less coercive deliberation at the agency over disputes. David Baker indicates that he has NEVER overturned a Preliminary Determination letter. [CPSC as judge and jury. That's a tough combo to overcome.]

Eric Stone: How do you overcome the impression that a company is “evil”? Baker – meetings at the agency are much rarer today, most communciations by phone call or email. Leads to more disagreements and makes disputes harder to resolve. Speed leads to this manner of communication. GR: My experience is that expressing a cooperative attitude with CPSC compliance officers will typically be reciprocated.

Gotta go catch my plane . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update on Recall Law and Procedures

CPSIA – A Fuller Response to Rep. Butterfield

At yesterday’s hearing, Ranking Member Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) questioned our use of a strange lead label on our rock kits. We mark our rock kits with a label that says “Caution: Federal law requires us to advise that THE ROCKS in this educational product may contain lead and might be harmful if swallowed.” We also mark fossil kits with a similar label. I characterize this label as humiliating to us.

As I often say to people, these labels only tell half the story. We don’t warn people to not eat our rocks for the real reason – that they are rocks. Eating rocks can break your teeth. Eating fossils destroys our fossil record, too. This is not a good idea.

Mr. Butterfield questioned whether this label was really a CPSIA issue. I can understand the confusion. As I testified, we have to work hard to master the 3,000+ pages of CPSIA rules and law that pertain to our business. We have 5.5 people in our QC department now, including me, and an outside lawyer to help us, too. After about three years of work, we think we have a pretty good idea about how the rules work. Maybe on a good day . . . .

Much of this gobbledygook makes no sense – and count this example as Exhibit A for nonsense rules. I testified that I did not want to use this label and that we had a one hour conference call with our lawyer over this one label. I was overruled – we had to use it. I was not happy and remain miffed over the label.

Why did we have to do it?

Well, we sell rock kits that are intended for kids and schools. There’s no question about that. If you make a product aimed at kids, every part has to be lead-free, even if it’s a rock, a fossil or something else made by G-d long before man showed up to roam the Earth. We can’t “assure” ourselves that we are selling lead-free rocks because every rock is different. G-d’s QC processes predate the CPSIA, you see. Anyhow, to sell rocks to kids, rather than sell them pictures of rocks in our kits, we need an “out”. Otherwise, I suppose we risk jail time.

Hey, I didn’t write the damn law. Don’t blame me . . . .

Fortunately, there is a little crack in the veneer that allows us to keep selling rock and fossil kits. This section from the CPSC’s Q&A gives us a way to keep going:

“Are chemistry sets, science education sets and other educational materials excluded from the lead limits for content and paint and surface coatings if they bear adequate labeling under 16 C.F.R. § 1500.85?

16 C.F.R. § 1500.85 provides that certain articles that are intended for children for educational purposes are exempt for classification as a banned hazardous substance under the FHSA and the lead limits under CPSIA if the functional purpose of the particular educational item requires inclusion of the hazardous substance, and it bears labeling giving adequate directions and warnings for safe use, and is intended for use by children who have attained sufficient maturity, and may reasonably be expected, to read and heed such directions and warnings. For example, an electronics kit or robotics kit would be considered educational and the inclusion of a lead-containing component would not subject the kit to the lead testing requirements because the use of lead in some components is required to make the electronic device. Similarly, the materials used for examination or experimentation for science study such as soil, rocks, chemicals, dissections, etc. would also be exempt.” [Emphasis added]

In my opinion, this is shameful and wrong and misleading to consumers, but it’s our only choice. The CPSIA forces us to hire lawyers to figure out how to legally bend over, pick up a rock, put it in a box and sell it.

I have boldly decided to not label the flagstones leading to my front door because they’re not “Children’s Products”. If Trick-or-Treaters choose to lick the sidewalk on the way to our door next October, no one can blame me!

Blame Congress instead.

Read more here:
CPSIA – A Fuller Response to Rep. Butterfield

CPSIA – News Round-up Ahead of Hearing

There’s a lot happening! Here are a few highlights:

a. Fox News is reporting that today’s hearing is the beginning of an effort by House Republicans to restore common sense to the CPSIA. Be still my heart! Of course, readers of this space knew that the cavalry was coming. Lots of good people are pulling for change right now but the path forward will not be easy. On the one side, we have Republicans: “‘There are parts of (the children’s product safety law) that need to be peeled back and thrown into the trash,’ said one Republican source close to the process.” And on the other side, you have the fear mongers: “‘When the first children get sick from using a product with lead, it will point out the folly of their ‘common sense,’ said Nancy Cowles, executive director of Chicago-based Kids in Danger, who is testifying at Thursday’s hearing. ‘It’s common sense to most people not to have lead in their products.’”

b. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is introducing (or introduced, not sure) an amendment to the Continuing Resolution currently on the floor of the House to DE-FUND THE DATABASE! Hurray for Mike Pompeo. This move is garnering strong public support from other Republican leaders in the House. Cross your fingers. Again, there’s a long road ahead. Here is the amendment:

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1

OFFERED BY MR. POMPEO OF KANSAS

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

SEC. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to carry out any of the activities described in section 6A of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2055a).

c. The Democrats are going away meekly on the CPSIA. Yesterday, Henry Waxman together with Subcommittee Ranking Member G.K. Butterfield put out a press release entitled “New Poll Shows “Very Strong” Support for Federal Consumer Product Safety Efforts“. Bringing to mind popularity polls released by Idi Amin back in the waning days of his Emperorship, the poll commissioned by Consumer Reports indicates that 98% of consumers “agreed strongly or somewhat that the federal government should play a prominent role in improving product safety”. If they included my vote . . . . The Waxman/Butterfield press release references three Pompeo amendments but it is my understanding that only the database amendment above will be introduced.

The Pompeo amendment and this absurd push poll are related events. You can examine how “out of touch with reality” we apparently are by checking out the amazing poll details at this link.
d. Inez Tenenbaum has also been commissioned to push back on Pompeo. Yesterday, she posted a joint blogpost with U.S. PIRG on the topic of the database. As Carter Wood of NAM’s Shopfloor blog pithily tweeted: “Hard to imagine #CPSC Commissioners Nord or Northup ever co-blogging with NAM or Rick Woldenberg the day before a cmte hearing.” Carter makes an interesting point. I am not hurt, by the way . . . . He also notes: “Tenenbaum’s co-blogging at the site of a leading left-leaning activist group immediately before the hearing almost looks like a conscious poke in the eye to committee members.”

Should be another interesting day today!

Read more here:
CPSIA – News Round-up Ahead of Hearing

CPSIA – 100 ppm Lead Standard Hearing Video Link

You can watch today’s CPSC hearing beginning at 10 AM EST at this link.

Read more here:
CPSIA – 100 ppm Lead Standard Hearing Video Link

CPSIA – 100 ppm Hearing Line-up

Panel 1

Don Mays – Consumers Union
Dana Best – American Academy of Pediatrics

Panel 2

Stan Piorek – Thermo Fisher Scientific
Sanjeev Gandhi – SGS
Milton Bush – International Federation of Inspection Agencies and American Council of Independent Laboratories
Quin Dodd (Mintz Levin PC) and Satbir Nayar – XOS

Panel 3

Rick Woldenberg – Learning Resources, Inc.
Rick Locker – Toy Industry Association, Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, Craft and Hobby Association, Halloween Industry Association, and Coalition for Safe Affordable Childrenswear
Kirsten Chapman – Kleynimals.com
Erika Jones, John Nedeau & John Bogler – Bicycle Product Supplier Association and ATC labs

Read more here:
CPSIA – 100 ppm Hearing Line-up

CPSIA – What Can We Learn From the Toyota Debacle?

It was about one year ago when the Federal government went into overdrive in trashing Toyota, a widely admired and reputable company, for its apparently defective automotive accelerator mechanism. I say “apparently” because our fearless leaders in government reached that conclusion that Toyotas were defective based on hasty conclusions and a document review . . . but no scientific research. This is hardly a shock. I have previously observed that manufacturing a dangerous public enemy in an election year is quite helpful to members of Congress – after all, we need to be reminded who’s working so hard to save us.

A quick reminder: the CPSIA was passed in August 2008. Oh my gosh, that’s right before a national election!

The drive to jump on board and bash Toyota was overwhelming. Recalling Joe Biden’s helpful 2009 advice to not fly or take the subway because of a swine flu outbreak, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood warned Americans to stop driving Toyotas in a Congressional hearing last year. You can’t be TOO safe! Think of the impact on the company and its brand. Yesterday he announced Toyotas “are safe to drive“. Oops. . . .

Not to be outdone, Rep. Henry Waxman, the man principally responsible for being subject to the CPSIA without amendment now almost three years later, torched the company for its supposed misdeeds in his opening statement at his committee’s hearing on February 23, 2010. What did Toyota do wrong? Well, he says the “defect” in their cars had to be in the newfangled electronics in the accelerator mechanism. Callous Toyota didn’t look at the electronics, Mr. Waxman contends. Instead, he said “There is no evidence that Toyota . . . took a serious look at the possibility that electronics defects could be causing the problem . . . . Toyota had three responses: first, blame the driver; second, blame the floor mat; third, blame a sticky gas pedal. And NHTSA, without doing any meaningful independent review, accepted Toyota’s recommendations.”

Clearly NHTSA needed David Strickland to fix everything and make us all so safe – he did such a great job on the CPSIA!

Ironically, Mr. Waxman was pretty clairvoyant that day. NHTSA (under David Strickland’s guidance) concluded yesterday that Toyota’s purported three “responses” were the right explanations for the sudden acceleration problem. See the WSJ article linked above. Hmmm. Mr. Waxman carried on to warn Toyota that “safety must start coming first” (implying that Mr. Waxman’s judgment on auto safety is superior to Toyota’s) and concluded that “ultimately . . . addressing this problem will require legislation.”

I feel another CPSIA flashback coming on . . . .

The Toyota feeding frenzy even swept up our own Chairman Tenenbaum who couldn’t resist pointing the finger, too: “A new Commission that has new powers – and we are not afraid to use them. If you resist our efforts to recall children’s products, be forewarned, this Commission stands ready to be creative in the use of our enforcement authorities. As the Toyota experience has shown in recent weeks, this government will not allow for delay in recalling dangerous products.” No delay whatsoever – even to figure out if they are actually dangerous! Didn’t McDonald’s recall safe Shrek glasses “out of an abundance of caution” at the request of the CPSC? Toyota was quite inspiring, I guess.

To put a bow on the conclusion of this comedy of errors, Public Citizen (the consumer group purporting to “protect” you in the CPSIA saga, too) asserts that the government’s Toyota study is not “convincing”. I have previously explained why folks like Public Citizen will NEVER give up the ghost here. There is probably nothing that could convince them that they were wrong in the first place. After all, that’s pretty de-legitimizing. We certainly can’t have that! Think AAP on lead.

Blamestorming in Congress, jumping to conclusions based on a media frenzy, little hard information and a lot of political drum banging? Brandishing the blunt force of excessive government power to beat a company senseless? Toyota is one of the largest companies in the world. Imagine if this excessive power were taken against a small business? Imagine . . . .

As I said last year, the Toyota feeding frenzy is what we have been subject to, now for three years, in the sad CPSIA debacle. At a Congressional hearing next week when I may face the same legislators who took Toyota down – for no good reason – I must again defend our right to conduct business responsibly without the intrusion of government into everything we do. Having written a law to keep children “safe”, Congress is quite reluctant to admit their error and admit that we can keep kids safe without being told how to do it. The basic reason is that they can’t acknowledge that kids weren’t at risk from lead BEFORE the law. It’s easier for them to ruin our businesses than to do the right thing.

Just to be clear, it is absolutely irrefutably clear that the agents for change here are the Republicans and the opponents to remaking the CPSIA into something workable and sensible are the Democrats. As I have stated before, Democrats in the Senate are still working to block change. They are like Public Citizen – NO possible data can convince them.

Will Congress ever admit that the definition of Children’s Product is too broad, that the scope of ages covered by the CPSIA is damaging to our markets, that we are over-regulating extremely minor or unreal risks while ignoring big risks (thereby actually making children LESS safe), that the rising (risen?) specter of liability is having a very negative effect on the conduct of business, that the encouragement of rabid enforcement at the CPSC has created an environment of mindless and uncompromising rule following (creating many starkly unfair results and ruining the reputation of a proud agency accustomed to doing good), and so on? That’s a good question.

Tune in next week and see for yourself!

Read more here:
CPSIA – What Can We Learn From the Toyota Debacle?

CPSIA – My Remarks at House Working Session on CPSIA

STATEMENT OF RICHARD WOLDENBERG
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
Committee on Energy and Commerce
United States House of Representatives
January 6, 2011

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views today. My name is Richard Woldenberg. I am Chairman of Learning Resources, Inc., a Vernon Hills, Illinois-based manufacturer of educational materials.

Despite its lofty goals, the CPSIA has had little impact on safety while severely disrupting markets and sharply raising operating costs. I have previously testified that our testing costs rose 8 times between 2006 and 2009 and are expected to multiply again. We have also cut back on our marketing and sales expenses to pay for the increase in our QC department from one to five.

This so-called “toy law” was designed to solve a problem that frankly didn’t exist. In 2007/8, there were some notorious toy recalls for lead-in-paint violations – yet there were almost no injuries. The CPSIA was an almost hysterical over-reaction to a simple compliance issue concerning a small number of companies.

Ironically, the CPSIA has already “cured” the compliance problem in the toy industry despite the glacial pace of implementation. Today, 30 months after passage of the law, lead-in-substrate testing is still not mandatory – yet toy recalls have fallen dramatically. How did it happen? I believe publicity, industry outreach and the commitment of new resources by industry improved compliance. Revised lead standards had NOTHING to do with it.

The CPSIA is causing a lasting trauma in our market. Small businesses left the market in droves. For instance, we decided not to enter the toddler market with new educational products. While foregone business opportunities don’t produce a pile of bodies, the economic damage is still severe. In an efficient marketplace, capital is redeployed and products and companies just move elsewhere. We need to fix this problem pronto.

The solution to the CPSIA problem lies in fixing the four horsemen of this apocalypse: (a) cost, (b) complexity, (c) risk and (d) government intrusion.

The worst CPSIA cost impact relates to needless and repetitive testing. Mandatory testing for everything but lead-in-paint should be dropped. An amended CPSIA should apply ONLY to those products specifically identified as presenting a substantial risk of injury or death from lead or lead-in-paint at the specified mandatory standards. This will sensibly knock out the vast majority of products subject to this law. The CPSC Commission should be mandated by law to rigorously apply this rule – the agency should bear the burden of proof.

The excesses of the current “precautionary principle” era cannot be allowed to continue. Lax application of the “substantial product hazard” law has created real doubt about the meaning of our safety laws. Strict adherence to this rule should be mandated by Congress to eliminate the many artificial crises spawned by the CPSIA. Discretion to set age limits, the applicability of the phthalates ban, tracking labels and the reduction of the lead standards should be subject to the same rigorous rule.

To preserve the competitiveness of American schools, special exemptions must be made for educational products (particularly science and special needs items).

The phthalates ban should be limited to products for children three and under to sharply reduce CPSIA compliance costs. This is a reasonable compromise pending resolution of any remaining doubts over the safety of these specific chemicals.

Complexity must be sharply reduced. The old rules were a manageable 100 pages or so but now top 3000 pages and growing. We need to return to a “keep it simple” set of rules with limited reporting requirements. Congress or the CPSC must choose top priorities, and promulgate limited and focused rules. I can assure you that no one understands the moving target of CPSC rules anymore. This MUST be remedied in any amendment of the CPSIA.

Needless bureaucracy should be eliminated, such as CPSC certification of labs, including in-house labs. Fraud and/or incompetence in testing have always been rare. Customs involvement in the CPSC supply chain should be shaped by a cost-benefit basis. Dealing with product safety like the prevention of terrorism is absurdly disproportionate to the risk and far too costly.

Implementation of the public database should be delayed until reasonable protections of due process rights of manufacturers are in place. Congress never intended to create an indistinguishable mixed bag of truths, half-truths and falsehoods – that’s what we have the Internet for. The adopted “anything goes” rules went way too far, and will accelerate market exits.

Government intrusion and excessive government power casts a pall over the children’s product market now. Open-ended penalty provisions allow for emotional and disproportionate punishments. The Commission has also asserted unprecedented powers to retroactively ban products and to mandate their replacement. Clearly, strict procedural controls and protections are missing. The era of “death penalties” without oversight must end.

Some CPSIA fixes are not legislative. Among other things, the CPSC needs to embrace industry as its partner in safety. As the past two years demonstrates, engaging industry is the key to long term improvements in safety.

Notwithstanding the media’s misrepresentation of our industry, we have an enviable record of safety. This is not a case of bad people, venal companies or lazy regulators. The problem is one of misapplied resources and ineffective regulatory strategy. The solution doesn’t require more money or more chest thumping. A well-designed law, combined with good education and industry outreach practices, will create the safer market that everyone wants.

Thank you for considering my views today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Remarks at House Working Session on CPSIA

CPSIA – Publishers HOWL Over Inadequate Waxman Amendment

As rumors swirl over the demise of the Waxman Amendment (CPSEA) over Mr. Waxman’s stubborn refusal to fix the CPSIA, the Publishing industry is bemoaning their fate under the awful CPSIA. Stand in line, baby!

In an article in Publishers Weekly online, the publishers noted that last week’s hearing did not “address the needs of the book publishing industry, which argues that it should be exempted since virtually no ‘ordinary’ children’s books contain lead above the limits outlined in the CPSIA.” Hmmm. Apparently, the publishers don’t have much of a sense of humor about the burden of being swept up in new safety rules that will accomplish nothing:

“’We don’t see the sense of hundreds of thousands of books clogging the queues at the independent third-party testing facilities, only to be found safe, at a great burden of cost to publishers,’ said Allan Adler, v-p for legal and government affairs at the Association of American Publishers. . . . Adler noted that the current stay of enforcement expires in February 2011 and the publishing industry needs a solution before then. ‘We have our eye on the calendar.’ No matter what happens with “ordinary” children’s books, novelty and book-plus titles (such as those with plastic incorporated or toys attached) will still be subject to the CPSIA’s testing and other requirements.” [Emphasis added]

Eyes on the calendar . . . wow, the publishers really seemed pissed off. I wonder why.

Well, since you asked, here is the data for all book recalls in the last 11 years:

• Choking recalls: 8 recalls, 1 injury, no deaths
• Lead recalls: 2 recalls, no injuries, no deaths
• Lead-in-paint: 3 recalls, no injuries, no deaths
• Strangulation: 1 recall, no injuries, no deaths

Obviously a very dangerous category of products – books produced one injury in 11 years. The “injury” was that a child “began to choke”. Oh the horror of it all.

Think of the quality of our government – the book guys have been begging, literally BEGGING, for relief for almost two years now and the Dem-led Congress has utterly refused to act. The most the CPSC could do for them was to announce that books printed after 1985 were lead-free. Everybody, toss out your copy of “1984″. The government says so!

Let’s dig a bit deeper into the five recalls associated with lead. I am sure these injury-free lead recalls over the last 11 years will clarify how at risk we are:

1. Parragon, Inc.: This recall for lead featured lead solder on a jewelry charm. Oooo, that’s scary.
2. St. Martin’s Press LLC: This recall of cloth books featured a “red plastic dot” that contained high levels of lead. I assume this “dot” was made of vinyl and was not in fact coated. One might ask how this might cause lead poisoning. This recall was a head scratcher for many people after it occurred.
3. Martin Designs, Inc.: This recall involved lead paint on the spiral binding of a book.
4. eeBoo Corp.: This recall involved lead paint on the spiral binding of a book.
5. Galison/Mudpuppy: This recall involved lead paint on the spiral binding of a book.

Please note that the lead-in-paint violations were ALSO violations of prior law. Lead-in-paint has been illegal for decades on children’s products.

Can anyone identify the dreaded danger posed by books? As I said long ago in this space, I always thought it was the words that were dangerous in a book. Certainly that’s what seems to be dangerous in a blog . . . .

And perhaps someone from the CPSC (I know you are reading this, I can see you!) could leave a comment here admitting how many man-hours have been spent (wasted) on the book issue under the CPSIA. I bet it’s nothing short of 500 man-hours, and would not be surprised if it’s more than a full man-year.

And remember, when the CPSC devotes all its resources to counting angels dancing on the head of a pin, they have very little time to find dangerous products (no, I mean ACTUALLY dangerous products). Feeling safer yet? [You shouldn't.]

Too bad, book people. You are a “necessary sacrifice” to the greater cause of making children so, so, SOOOOO safe.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Publishers HOWL Over Inadequate Waxman Amendment

CPSIA – Publishers HOWL Over Inadequate Waxman Amendment

As rumors swirl over the demise of the Waxman Amendment (CPSEA) over Mr. Waxman’s stubborn refusal to fix the CPSIA, the Publishing industry is bemoaning their fate under the awful CPSIA. Stand in line, baby!

In an article in Publishers Weekly online, the publishers noted that last week’s hearing did not “address the needs of the book publishing industry, which argues that it should be exempted since virtually no ‘ordinary’ children’s books contain lead above the limits outlined in the CPSIA.” Hmmm. Apparently, the publishers don’t have much of a sense of humor about the burden of being swept up in new safety rules that will accomplish nothing:

“’We don’t see the sense of hundreds of thousands of books clogging the queues at the independent third-party testing facilities, only to be found safe, at a great burden of cost to publishers,’ said Allan Adler, v-p for legal and government affairs at the Association of American Publishers. . . . Adler noted that the current stay of enforcement expires in February 2011 and the publishing industry needs a solution before then. ‘We have our eye on the calendar.’ No matter what happens with “ordinary” children’s books, novelty and book-plus titles (such as those with plastic incorporated or toys attached) will still be subject to the CPSIA’s testing and other requirements.” [Emphasis added]

Eyes on the calendar . . . wow, the publishers really seemed pissed off. I wonder why.

Well, since you asked, here is the data for all book recalls in the last 11 years:

• Choking recalls: 8 recalls, 1 injury, no deaths
• Lead recalls: 2 recalls, no injuries, no deaths
• Lead-in-paint: 3 recalls, no injuries, no deaths
• Strangulation: 1 recall, no injuries, no deaths

Obviously a very dangerous category of products – books produced one injury in 11 years. The “injury” was that a child “began to choke”. Oh the horror of it all.

Think of the quality of our government – the book guys have been begging, literally BEGGING, for relief for almost two years now and the Dem-led Congress has utterly refused to act. The most the CPSC could do for them was to announce that books printed after 1985 were lead-free. Everybody, toss out your copy of “1984″. The government says so!

Let’s dig a bit deeper into the five recalls associated with lead. I am sure these injury-free lead recalls over the last 11 years will clarify how at risk we are:

1. Parragon, Inc.: This recall for lead featured lead solder on a jewelry charm. Oooo, that’s scary.
2. St. Martin’s Press LLC: This recall of cloth books featured a “red plastic dot” that contained high levels of lead. I assume this “dot” was made of vinyl and was not in fact coated. One might ask how this might cause lead poisoning. This recall was a head scratcher for many people after it occurred.
3. Martin Designs, Inc.: This recall involved lead paint on the spiral binding of a book.
4. eeBoo Corp.: This recall involved lead paint on the spiral binding of a book.
5. Galison/Mudpuppy: This recall involved lead paint on the spiral binding of a book.

Please note that the lead-in-paint violations were ALSO violations of prior law. Lead-in-paint has been illegal for decades on children’s products.

Can anyone identify the dreaded danger posed by books? As I said long ago in this space, I always thought it was the words that were dangerous in a book. Certainly that’s what seems to be dangerous in a blog . . . .

And perhaps someone from the CPSC (I know you are reading this, I can see you!) could leave a comment here admitting how many man-hours have been spent (wasted) on the book issue under the CPSIA. I bet it’s nothing short of 500 man-hours, and would not be surprised if it’s more than a full man-year.

And remember, when the CPSC devotes all its resources to counting angels dancing on the head of a pin, they have very little time to find dangerous products (no, I mean ACTUALLY dangerous products). Feeling safer yet? [You shouldn't.]

Too bad, book people. You are a “necessary sacrifice” to the greater cause of making children so, so, SOOOOO safe.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Publishers HOWL Over Inadequate Waxman Amendment

« Previous Page — Next Page »