CPSIA – The Alliance for Children’s Product Safety Endorses CPSIA Amendment

For Immediate Release May 12, 2011 ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN’S PRODUCT SAFETY ENDORSES HOUSE BILL TO REFORM CPSIA The Alliance for Children’s Product Safety, a coalition of small business owners, manufacturers, crafters and entrepreneurs who are impacted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), issued the following statement in support of the “Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011″ (ECADA), a bill to be marked up on Thursday, May 12 by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade: “We strongly endorse this bill and congratulate Subcommittee Chairman Mary Bono-Mack and others who drafted this important legislation in order to bring common-sense to our product safety laws, and provide relief to the thousands of small businesses that have suffered from the overreaching provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). After almost three years of rancorous debate, Republicans and Democrats in Congress agree that it is time to fix the CPSIA. The law has banned safe products ranging from rhinestones, books, pens and musical instruments to ATVs and bicycles, devastating critically-important industries without proof that children will actually be safer. Congress and the CPSC have received testimony of companies driven out of business by this law, of products withdrawn from the market and of massive cost increases from needless and repetitive testing. The number of companies negatively impacted by the over-reaching provisions of the CPSIA is in the many thousands. ECADA would enact relatively modest changes to CPSIA, including those requested by both Democratic and Republican Commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The changes to rules governing the presence of lead in children’s products reflect good science and set appropriate, common sense standards to protect the health and well-being of our children while also protecting jobs in difficult economic times. The Alliance calls on the Committee to ignore the rhetoric from certain groups who accuse anyone who proposes common-sense modifications to the CPSIA of “endangering children” to justify a stifling, over-reaching law which has accomplished little but damaged many fine companies, killed jobs and depressed markets. These are the same groups whose extreme positions on “safety” have included testimony warning about the perils of “bicycle licking” and playing brass instruments in a school band. We cannot allow fear mongering to drive important federal legislation touching vital industries. There is bipartisan agreement that CPSIA needs to be fixed. ECADA is an important and long overdue step in this process and we urge Congress to finalize this legislation as soon as possible.” The Alliance for Children’s Product Safety, Chaired by Rick Woldenberg, is a coalition of small business owners, manufacturers, crafters and entrepreneurs who are impacted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). For additional information, please visit http://www.AmendTheCPSIA.com/ or contact Caitlin Andrews at 202-828-7637.

More:
CPSIA – The Alliance for Children’s Product Safety Endorses CPSIA Amendment

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 – Star-Tribune Op-Ed Blasts CPSIA for ATV Effects

[Editor's Note: I have a postscript to add to this Op-Ed. See the bottom for an additional fact to consider.]

Mike Larson: Toy lead ban puts kids on ATVs at risk

By MIKE LARSON
March 27, 2011
Commentary

In a month or so, the snow will be gone, the Twins will again be fighting for a pennant and thousands of families will be hitting the trails on ATVs looking for fun and adventure.

Unfortunately, this year more kids are likely to be riding larger, adult-sized ATVs because thousands of dealers like me can’t sell youth model ATVs or mini bikes.

Why? Because of a ridiculous political fight in Washington, D.C., that is putting our kids in danger.

ATV dealers and others in our industry are caught in the middle of a political tug-of-war because of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), a law that included new, strict standards for lead in toys — but created such a broad definition of “children’s products” that it ended up banning the sale of youth model ATVs, mini-bikes and other off-highway vehicles because they contain small amounts of lead.

Yes, you read that correctly: ATVs and motorcycles designed to meet the size and performance needs of young riders ages 6 to 12 became “banned hazardous substances” under the new law.

Because lead must be ingested in order to be a health risk, the small amounts of lead that are embedded in metal parts, like the frame and the battery terminals to enhance the safety and functionality of these components, pose no risk to kids.

While not one case of lead poisoning can be documented from children riding youth model ATVs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s own data shows that more than 90 percent of youth injuries and fatalities occur on larger, adult-size vehicles.

In fact, the CPSC, the ATV industry, safety advocates and parents all agree that it’s critical to keep youth riders off adult-sized ATVs, and have cooperated for years to educate ATV riders that children should ride only ATVs that are the correct size for them.

The CPSC’s own scientists agree that the presence of lead in these products does not present a health hazard to children. CPSC staff wrote to Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who helped write the bill:

“The possibility that children will suffer significant lead exposures from [youth model ATVs] appears to be remote at best….A child using an adult ATV as a substitute would face a far graver and more immediate risk than that of the possible lead exposure from the youth ATVs.”

Dingell is now calling for Congress to fix the law.

The CPSC also tried to temporarily address the ban by issuing a stay of enforcement in 2009.

Unfortunately, this hasn’t helped because the many manufacturers and dealers have chosen not to sell the smallest youth model ATVs because of the risks of selling under the stay, and there’s now a limited availability of these products for consumers.

In fact, half of the major ATV manufacturers are no longer selling youth model off-highway vehicles.

The financial impact on our industry has been devastating. Many dealerships throughout the country have closed because of losing the sales of youth-sized machines on top of an already depressed market. Many dealerships have had to lay off workers to stay open. These actions add job losses to an already challenging economic environment.

ATV and motor-sports enthusiasts have sent hundreds of thousands of letters and e-mails to Congress urging an end to the ban. Sen. Amy Klobuchar has pledged her support, and we urge her and other Minnesota members of Congress to take a leadership role in resolving this ridiculous situation. We’ve heard a lot of talk from both Republicans and Democrats that this ban must end, but for two years nothing has been done as politics has prevented Congress from addressing this problem.

Kids aren’t licking or eating their ATVs, but they just might ride adult-sized ATVs thanks to this ban. Congress is putting kids in danger by refusing to address this problem.

Mike Larson is owner of Larsons Cycle in Cambridge, Minn.

Editor’s Postscript: I attended a meeting of stakeholders on January 6th in Washington hosted jointly by Republican and Democratic staff for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to discuss possible changes to the CPSIA. [I wrote about this meeting a couple times earlier this year.] At this meeting, Cindy Pelligrini of the AAP admitted that the fact that the CPSIA tacitly banned youth model ATVs was fine with her and her employer. Why? As she noted, the AAP has long wanted youth model ATVs banned. Changing the law would only open the door to a reversal of this other policy objective of theirs. In other words, the AAP is using its standing with Democratic legislators to push an agenda with a “double benefit”. Rather than fighting to ban youth model ATVs directly, a battle it would certainly lose, the AAP used the indirect route of overselling a lead standard that they knew ATVs could not meet. ATVs weren’t banned under this law by accident. They were hardly an “unintended consequence.” The damage to Minnesota businesses has been significant under this law. Next time, Ms. Klobuchar should pick her allies more carefully.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Star-Tribune Op-Ed Blasts CPSIA for ATV Effects

CPSIA – Can You Trust Me on the CPSIA Database?

I have received a fair bit of feedback on my recent posts relating to the CPSIA Database. You may recall that I highlighted the CPSC policy decision to knowingly post untrue and misleading complaints about consumer products on the grounds that they state the opinion of consumers of a “risk of harm”. Apparently, the ignorance of those opinions or outright, blatant error matters not to our CPSC market administrators. Our submission of a valid CPSIA test report and photographic evidence was not persuasive of our common sense position in the instant case.

[The rejection of a CPSIA test report in refutation of an invalid "product incident" complaint is fascinating, given the vigorous and oft-repeated consumer group assertion that consumers DEMAND test reports to feel "secure" that children's products are safe. Supposedly, consumers assume "somebody" is testing everything, or at least that's the poppycock the consumer groups flog. This is a bedrock "assumption" underlying the CPSIA. Isn't it interesting then that the CSPC apparently places so little stock in these critically important test reports???]

Par for the course, my comments in this space never get an official response. The substance of my complaints go unanswered – but in this case, the rumor mill is churning. That’s my answer, I guess. I am told that little birds (from the CPSC) are chirping that I am taking the CPSC’s response “out of context”.

This is a great tactic because the argument makes it unnecessary to respond to my points. It also changes the debate, from the substance of my database objections to the subject of my character. Lending credence to the vague and unproven accusations is the official stature of the CPSC and its staff. CPSC job titles convey credibility, and my lowly status as a “blogger” and a “Small Business” makes everything I write subject to doubt. Who knows more about safety and the law? Who is more trustworthy? Who speaks with greater authority? My character is an easy target, much easier to attack than my points about the database.

And how am I to defend myself? I don’t have the option to hide in the shadows and say they are twisting facts. You get to read what I say . . . .

I have long adhered to principles of truthfulness and full disclosure in this space. I defy you to find a better documented space devoted to analysis of the CPSIA and its wide-ranging impact. I use real data and link to actual source materials. In this case, I quoted from a letter from a senior CPSC official. I have not revealed who wrote it – for two reasons. First, this person speaks for the agency, and as such, it is the agency that is responsible. I think the institution should be accountable, even if individuals are its mouthpiece(s). Second, this is not personal and as a consequence, the identity of the email’s author is a secondary consideration. The law is the problem. The authorship of the email is off point.

Well, why don’t you decide for yourself? Can you trust me?

Email no. 1 (March 4, from our company):

“The LER 7273 that the initial complaint was issued for is a discontinued product and is no longer available for sale in our catalogs. I have attached a test report for this item showing its compliance to both ASTM F-963 and EN-71. I have also provided you pictures which clearly shows the hearts are much larger than the choke tube requirements.

Can you please confirm that the providing of this detail, which clearly shows that the product was tested to be in compliance and the additional photos clearly showing the product complies with the stated issue, would not appear in the database after March 11th?

This type of complaint is exactly what we find to be very troubling with the database to our industry. This is an example where someone saw a photo of a product and without even touching it or seeing it in person filed a claim that they feel it ‘might’ be a hazard. There is no indication of potential harm or actual harm caused, just a feeling that it might be dangerous. We were able to quickly provide testing documents and photographic evidence that the product is compliant to all applicable standards and product requirements with no potential choking hazard with the hearts provided with the product. The concern is that this unjustified complaint will be placed on the database with a reply from us that proves it is not an issue, but the damage has been done and the perception to the end consumer is that this product is not safe.

Thanks again for your help in understanding the application of the database and it’s intended applicability going forward.”

Email no. 2 (March 8, from our company):

“Our ten day response window is coming up fast on the complaint that we had issued against us. Have you had a chance to discuss the information I sent to you on Friday? Thanks.”

Email no. 3 (March 9, from CPSC):

“As we discussed last Friday , since we are in soft launch, the report will not be posted in the public database. When I called you last Friday, I told you the staff consensus was that but for soft launch the report of harm would be posted in the database, and you would have to decide whether to post a comment or a claim for material inaccuracy. When we discussed the issue further and I asked you to send me the information you sent last Friday, I did not understand that you were still attempting to resolve the issue in the ten day time frame.

I should make it clear from the outset that I am not the person within the agency with the delegated authority to handle material inaccuracy claims. This email reflects my opinions and not those of the Commission and has not been reviewed by the Commissioners. When you first approached me about this at ICPHSO, I told you that my gut reaction was that despite the concerns you raised, the Commission staff handling these issues would take the consumer’s report at face value as a claim raising a concern of a risk of harm. I explained then that your Firm could provide a comment with your objections to the report or object to the report as materially inaccurate. Given your concerns about the report, I raised the issue with the database team handling the issues and confirmed to you in our call last Friday that the response was the same. I also indicated that the claim of material inaccuracy would likely be denied. I explained that the personnel handling these matters were not making decisions as to whether the product was harmful but rather they would take a quick look at whether the report of harm articulates a risk of harm. I write to follow up further on this issue.

On its face, the report indicates a concern about a choking hazard which suggests that the consumer believes there is a risk of harm. On Friday, you sent photos and test results that you believe are sufficient to make out a claim of material inaccuracy, i.e., that the product cannot be said to present a risk of harm because it passed the small parts test. The sweet toy heart is larger than the small parts cylinder, and you have provided test reports indicating that the product passed the small parts test. However, in assessing whether a report of harm articulates a risk of harm, the staff is not adjudicating whether the product actually presents such a risk of harm. We have other processes for making that determination which require an assessment of the risk by Commission staff, including a subject matter expert – in this case, a physiologist on the issues relating to the likelihood of a choking hazard to children. Indeed, the Commission has recalled products as a substantial product hazard where the toy was slightly larger than the small parts cylinder but, because of the shape, when swallowed, the toy presented a choking risk to children. The ultimate adjudication of whether a product presents a hazard is covered by different regulations entirely and would require an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge. As I explained on Friday, the database process is set up to allow the manufacturer to state its reasons why the report does not present a risk of harm and have that appear next to the consumer’s report. The staff handling claims of material inaccuracy will not be determining the ultimate question of whether the product does, in fact, present a risk of harm. That would only occur after a full assessment of the risk of harm by the subject matters experts and ample opportunity for the firm to address the issues with our compliance staff. The disclaimer is intended to notify users that the information has not been evaluated and specifically states: 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.

When I raised this information with the team that has been delegated the authority for making these decisions, staff concluded that the report would be posted in the database but for soft launch, and it would be up to the Firm to decide whether it wants its test reports and photos posted as comments in response to the report. The conclusion was that this is the type of report that has been included in our databases in the past and would be included in the public database along with the manufacturer’s comments and the mandatory disclaimer as to the accuracy of the information in the public database.“

For the ease of your review, I have highlighted in blue the words which I quoted in my March 9th blogpost.

Can you trust me? I have nothing to say, please judge from the facts. For those that prefer to lurk in the shadows and bash my character without being in any way accountable, please remember that the truth will out. Eventually, it may not be my character that will be the big issue of the day.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Can You Trust Me on the CPSIA Database?

CPSIA – ICPHSO Keynote Speech by Inez Tenenbaum

This speech will no doubt be posted on the CPSC website shortly. I will add the link later, please forgive any errors in these notes.

Reviewed 2010 efforts and achievements.

1. New crib standards (“vastly improved”).
2. Baby bath seats and walker rules
3. Cadmium in jewelry and children’s products (held off what might have been a repeat of the lead recall fiasco). Turned back some shipments at the port. Are now screening for cadmium when they find low lead levels in children’s products. Looking at cadmium in substrate in toys and in children’s products generally. Technical staff has made their position on these issues “abundantly clear”.
4. Toy safety improved. Recalls reduced from 172 in 2008 to 50 in 2009 to 44 in 2010. Lead recalls in 2010 were THREE. [RW: Obviously, lead is a huge issue.] This has helped to “restore” consumer confidence in toys.
5. Drywall initiative with HUD. Warnings about sleep positioners and baby slings.

As for 2011,

1. Looking forward to a “civil discussion” of the issues in 2011. The Commissioners go out to lunch together and aren’t like the Sopranos. The Commission is not fractious. 85% of our votes are unanimous. We do disagree from time to time, but “hope to do so without personal or disparaging attacks”.
2. 2010 was the year of the Consumer and 2011 will be “the year to get connected with the CPSC”. [RW: Last year she promised us that 2011 would be the year of enforcement. I guess that lays ahead . . . .]
3. Will implement the Five Year Strategic Plan
4. Wants to use Neal Cohen’s office
5. Launch the new database, assuming the government is “still open”.
6. Continuing new Section 104 rules, Pool Safely initiative, educating consumers about safe sleep.

“Knocking on the door” on being the global leader in consumer product safety. Looking for an “even more rigorous” identification process for product hazards. Will turn hazard identification into injury reduction. Want “safety built into the products intended for our store shelves.”

Touts her agency’s agreement with the Chinese government on toy safety. Sampling and testing in China will help assure safety.

Touts Neal Cohen’s efforts, and the efforts of the CPSC Beijing office. Re Small Business Ombudsman, it is dedicated “touch point” for small business for education. Many manufacturers might not know where to turn for information or to fully implement the new rules. Not trying to take away business from outside counsel. [She really said this.] Wants to facilitate the transfer of knowledge across industries.

[No mention of SBO advocating for small business or playing an active role in RESOLVING rules disputes or problems. Hmmm. A shoulder to cry on?]

Looking at a shifting supply base, bringing other countries into play. We’re looking to prevent a repeat of the China problems.

Re toxic metals, lead and cadmium requirements are intended to create safeguards for the future. Need to expand our vision beyond lead and cadmium. She’s got a nice long list of new things to be scared of. We want to be “leaders” in preventing harm from these metals. Need to avoid exposure from the substrate of toys or other products.

[RW: I think a few more tests will do us ALL a lot of good! I am CRAZY to stick around in this industry.]

Back to new crib standards. Cribs must be replaced by end of 2012 to come into compliance with the new rules. [RW: Stimulus plan!] Cribs compliant with the new rules will be available by June, we hope. Lots new rules in “safe sleep” and other juvenile products.

Database ready to roll in two weeks. Don’t forget to ask CF “more questions” today at 4 PM. ["More" questions?] She respectfully disagrees with objections to the database. Her pledge is that they will educate consumers that the report should be accurate and safety-based. Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of the good. Data warehouse will promote greater efficiency. Consumers will be more “empowered”. If consumers withdraw products while the CPSC is working behind the scenes to issue a recall, that’s a good thing in her view.

[RW: Is it a "good thing" if they withdraw from using products that are safe or are not subject to recall? Hmmm. That question was unaddressed.]

Recounts her advice on how to amend the CPSIA (functional purpose exception, should get the lead out if it’s “practical” to be removed, 100 ppm should be prospective only, and small businesses and small batch manufacturers deserve some relief). Will work with Congress on other changes.

She says, change it but don’t end it. Hmmm. Certainly remains open to making old suggested changes to the law.

Finally, pleased to share that starting on March 1, will launch the Chairman’s Commendation Circle Program. There will be more details about the nomination process. Wants to highlight innovators and those who are working to prevent injuries every day. [Hmmm.]

Have the right team in place, willing to take action against those who don’t follow the law. Forging a new regulatory approach with predictability and consumer confidence. If all of us can be partners in this effort, can build on the progress made in recent years.

RW: This is BY FAR the least threatening speech by Ms. Tenenbaum since she ascended to her chairmanship. Let’s hope this signals a significant shift in tone and direction.

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Keynote Speech by Inez Tenenbaum

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 – Unpublished Article Highlights CPSIA Benefits Felt by Testing Companies

Intertek Presses Toy Rules as U.S. Scrutiny Aids Testing Firms

2011-02-02 05:00:02.1 GMT

By Mark Drajem

Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) — When the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission last May proposed rules on how toymakers must test their products, Toys R Us Inc., Lego A/S and retail groups urged
the regulators to ease off.

One company took a different tack.

London-based Intertek Group Plc, the world’s largest consumer-goods testing company, argued that the rules should be expanded to require manufacturers to submit to further “engineering, chemical and biological analysis,” to ensure that the design of any toy is safe.

The filing demonstrates one consequence of increased government scrutiny of product safety: For Intertek and other testing companies such as Bureau Veritas SA and SGS SA the very rules that manufacturers and retailers say burden them with undue costs and paperwork mean more business.

“It’s just another opportunity to test,” said Larry Lynn, compliance manager at Learning Resources Inc., a Vernon Hills, Illinois-based maker of educational toys such as the Zoomy handheld microscope. The company estimates its testing costs jumped 10-fold since 2006.

“All the labs have seen a significant increase in the business because of the requirements of the CPSC,” said Rick Locker, a lawyer for the Toy Industry Association in New York. In the first months after a previous law went into effect in 2009, testing costs tripled, he said. While the expenses and
delays have receded, pending new requirements mean “you could see that issue come back again,” he said in an interview.

Back to Edison

Intertek, which traces its corporate heritage to Thomas Edison’s Lamp Testing Bureau, has more than 1,000 labs in 100 countries. In addition to analyzing consumer products such as apparel and toys, it tests or certifies chemicals, foods and minerals. It earned 103.7 million pounds ($167.3 million) on revenue of 652.6 million pounds in the first half of 2010, its most recent published results.

The U.S. testing requirements followed a rash of recalls in 2007 of Chinese-made toys, sold by companies such as Mattel Inc., which were found to contain lead paint. In response, Congress passed legislation in 2008 mandating that all toymakers curb lead and other harmful materials in their products and redouble testing.

While the rules apply to toys sold in the U.S., much of the testing takes place in China and Hong Kong, where many U.S. toys are made. The U.S. imported $25 billion in toys from China in 2009, making it the third-largest category of imports from the country, behind computers and household goods such as clocks.

European Testers

The largest consumer-testing companies are based in Europe. Among the bigger ones in the U.S. are Northbrook, Illinois-based Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and Consumer Testing Laboratories
Inc. in Bentonville, Arkansas. Both are closely held.

Intertek, Bureau Veritas and SGS, the world’s three largest testing companies, all say their revenue jumped after the new toy requirements began in January 2009. Intertek’s revenue from consumer-goods testing in the first six months of that year climbed more than 20 percent, almost double the overall company revenue growth, to 162.5 million pounds.

Its profit margin in consumer products was 33 percent, double that of the company as a whole. Intertek has more than doubled in London trading since the U.S. law took effect, and has risen 45 percent in the past 12 months.

Both Bureau Veritas, based in Neuilly-sur-Seine near Paris, and Geneva-based SGS are bigger than Intertek in revenue from all testing. Bureau Veritas shares have increased 54 percent in the last year. SGS, the world’s biggest overall product inspector, is up 15 percent.

Growth Ahead

While Intertek’s consumer-testing revenue fell 0.4 percent to 161.9 million pounds in the first half of 2010, the company predicts a U.S. requirement that a government-certified, outside testing company examine each children’s product will boost profits again over the next two years.

The new U.S. rule, as well as a European Union initiative in toy safety, “present further opportunities for growth in 2011 and 2012,” the company said in a presentation to investors in August. The Consumer Product Safety Commission voted yesterday to delay the next round of testing requirements until 2012 from later this year as initially planned.

Anticipating an increased need for testing, Intertek has introduced computer software for sale to manufacturers so they can meet the analytical and paperwork requirements the consumer-safety agency is scheduled to implement.

Intertek also is making sure its voice is heard in Washington. It hired former CPSC chief of staff Joseph Mohorovic as a vice president, and paid the firm of former CPSC chairman Hal Stratton $240,000 last year to lobby on its behalf, according to government records.

No Regrets

Gene Rider, president of Oak Brook, Illinois-based Intertek Consumer Goods in North America, said a combination of increased consumer awareness and growing global outsourcing is sparking
demand for Intertek’s testing services.

“One of the misconceptions is that regulation drives our revenues,” Rider said in an interview. “All the rules are asking manufacturers to do is to demonstrate good manufacturing practice.”

As for its petition to the CPSC, Rider said he has no regrets. Most recalls are caused by design flaws, not faulty materials such as lead paint, and those won’t be found without new government requirements, he said.

“It’s all about designing the product to avoid injuries or fatalities,” Rider said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at +1-202-624-1964 or mdrajem@bloomberg.net.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Unpublished Article Highlights CPSIA Benefits Felt by Testing Companies

CPSIA – First Update on House CPSIA Meeting

I am going to be feeding updates on yesterday’s Washington meeting over the next few days. There is a fair bit to digest and explain. I want to do justice to the importance of the topic. Please bear with me!

In the meantime, here are some basic documents to read. The meeting was attended by the following people or groups, and some of them presented their positions in writing. If they gave out written remarks, I have linked to the documents below:

American Academy of Pediatrics
Handmade Toy Alliance
American Apparel & Footwear Association
Consumer Federation of America
Consumers Union
Printing Industries of America
Toy Industry Association
Fashion Jewelry and Accessories Trade Association
National Association of Manufacturers
Alliance for Children’s Product Safety (yours truly)
American Chemistry Council
ATV Industry
Retail Industry Leaders Association

The meeting was also attended by staff representing both the Majority (Republicans) and Minority (Democrats) on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as interested parties like staff from the offices of various members of Congress (notably, Rep. Mary Bono-Mack, incoming Chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade).

More later!

Read more here:
CPSIA – First Update on House CPSIA Meeting

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 – 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

Next Page »