CPSIA – My Letter to Eric Cantor re CPSIA Over-regulation

VIA FAX (202-225-0011)

The Honorable Eric Cantor
United States House of Representatives
Office of Republican Whip
329 Cannon Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: ”Delivering on Our Commitment” Letter

Dear Representative Cantor,

I am writing in response to your November 3rd letter entitled “Delivering on Our Commitment” in which you call for increased Congressional oversight of federal agencies legislating through regulations. My industry, the children’s product industry, is a victim of this kind of regulatory abuse. The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) blizzard of new safety rules and regulations sharply ramps up government intrusions into markets by adopting the suffocating “precautionary principle” as its legal standard. This European-style approach to regulation, while doing nothing to improve the safety of products, is a job-killer and a business-killer plain and simple.

We really need your help!

In August 2008, Congress passed the “Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008” (CPSIA). The CPSIA had a noble purpose – to improve safety for children’s products by tightly regulating lead and phthalates (a plastic softener). It is a cliché now to observe that this flawed law was beset by “unintended consequences.” Unfortunately, Congress and the CPSC have been unmoved by the chaos that has ensued in the marketplace and the business community’s persistent pleas for relief. Small businesses are notable and well-documented victims of this law.

The children’s product industry, as defined by the CPSIA, goes far beyond toys and spans the U.S. economy. Children’s products under the definition of the CPSIA include ATVs, motorcycles, bicycles, pens, educational products, books, consumer electronics, apparel, shoes, jewelry, DVDs, furniture, musical instruments, carpeting and so on. Even the local resale shop and your own garage sale are now subject to new regulation under this law.

Our objections to this law do not reflect callousness toward safety. Quite the contrary, our industry’s lifeblood is children – and our outstanding safety track record befits an industry of caring adults. None of us want to endanger children. Likewise, we cannot tolerate being subject to laws that make operating our businesses unprofitable or exceptionally risky.

The CPSIA saga has become the poster child for “over-regulation”. While proponents of this safety law stress the possibility of injury to children (the curb appeal of the law), they fail to account for the probability of injury or prove a nexus between our products and the few known injuries. This is a critical distinction. While advocates argue that the so-called “Year of the Recall” justifies the arch new legal regime (473 products were recalled in 2007), the fact remains that children’s product recalls by the CPSC are associated with only one death (from a piece of leaded jewelry) and three unverified injuries over the 11-year period from 1999-2010 (according to published CPSC recall notices). By comparison, CPSIA compliance costs have been estimated to be more than $5.6 billion per annum.

We all agree that lead is a dangerous natural substance that can harm children – but the question is HOW. Other federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Center for Disease Control, point to house paint, industrial pollution and the residual effects of leaded gasoline as causes of elevated blood lead levels in children. The connection between lead in children’s products and injuries from lead remains undocumented. Daily intake of lead from children’s products is less than daily intake from food, water and the air, yet the CPSC remains undeterred.

Likewise, phthalates concerns remain highly controversial. The safety advocates have yet to produce a single known victim of phthalates – other than our businesses. Notably, since passage of the CPSIA in 2008, the agency recalled only one product for phthalates – 140 inflatable toy baseball bats. Even so, our company may have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on phthalates testing annually under the new law.

The agency’s response to lead and phthalates has been to impose a multi-billion dollar annual compliance cost accompanied by threats of heavy penalties, injunctions by the U.S. Attorney and possible felony charges. The agency’s obsession with lead and phthalates has led some staff members to refer to it as the “Children’s Product Safety Commission.” By comparison, the agency devotes few resources to swimming pools and spas, for instance, which account for more than one childhood death and between 11 and 12 serious injuries EVERY DAY according to the CPSC. I believe these confused priorities represent a subversion of the purpose of this agency under federal law.

Efforts to blunt the CPSIA’s impact have fallen on deaf ears. Sadly, Congress’ refusal to address the law’s shortcomings has only made the problem worse for the industry. Since passage, the CPSIA has been the subject of only one oversight hearing with a single witness, CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. There have been two other hearings, one by a subcommittee of the House Committee on Small Business and the other by a subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Congress has never chosen to act on the many documented abuses of the business community under this law. The agency itself has held innumerable hearings and called for public comments again and again, but few objections of the regulated community have influenced outcomes. Votes on the Commission are now often on partisan lines – an abomination if one concedes that safety is not a partisan issue.

The regulatory nightmare of the CPSIA yawns wide in front of us. I testified before Congress in April 2010 that my company is now subject to more than 2500 pages of laws, regulations, rulings and other disorganized documents. Prior to the CPSIA, we were responsible to follow about 80 pages of rules, most of which did not apply to us on a daily basis. The total number of pages of applicable laws and rules now balloons far larger than Obamacare – and any violation of any sentence constitutes a possible felony offense under the terms of the CPSIA. We also must bear the risk that any of the 50 State Attorneys General might enforce this law if the CPSC defers. It is a regulatory nightmare of Orwellian dimensions. The CPSIA is an economic depressant by any definition.

The issues under the CPSIA fall into four categories: (a) Cost, (b) Complexity, (c) Legal risk and (d) Government intrusion. Our markets are now in total disarray because of the massive intrusion of the federal government along with scare tactics used by regulators trying to coerce compliance and, at the same time, obtain larger funding from Congress. Ironically, the more the agency uses the CPSIA to make us look bad, the more essential and irreplaceable they make themselves look. This perverse incentive is hard to combat. We need Congress to stop this madness.

The problems with the CPSIA and its implementation by the CPSC deserve much closer Congressional scrutiny. Our employees, our retailers and suppliers, and most importantly, the schools, teachers, families and children who want, need and depend on our educational products are counting on the new majority party in the House to restore sanity to federal safety administration.

Thank you for your urgent consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg

Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
380 North Fairway Drive
Vernon Hills, IL 60061

Chairman
Alliance for Children’s Product Safety

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Letter to Eric Cantor re CPSIA Over-regulation

CPSIA – Governmental Biases On Display at CPSC

802 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 8 days left until Election Day.

The WSJ published a short article about the psychology of governments called Studying the Biases of Bureaucrats (subtitled “Five Ways Regulators Think Wrong”). The application of psychology to economic decisions has produced a few Nobel Prizes – the implications of psychology on decision-making is well-known and generally accepted.

See if you recognize the Democrats who run the CPSC in some of these bureaucratic decision-making foibles:

“. . . [P]sychologists have shown that we systematically overestimate how much we understand about the causes and mechanisms of things we half understand. The Swedish health economist Hans Rosling once gave students a list of five pairs of countries and asked which nation in each pair had the higher infant-mortality rate. The students got 1.8 right out of 5. Mr. Rosling noted that if he gave the test to chimpanzees they would get 2.5 right. So his students’ problem was not ignorance, but that they knew with confidence things that were false.” [Emphasis added]

My comment: Is the author suggesting the election of chimpanzees to the CPSC Commission? Hmmm, you must admit it’s a creative suggestion. . . .

“The issue of action bias is better known in England as the “dangerous dogs act,” after a previous government, confronted with a couple of cases in which dogs injured or killed people, felt the need to bring in a major piece of clumsy and bureaucratic legislation that worked poorly. . . . It takes unusual courage for a regulator to stand up and say ‘something must not be done,’ lest ‘something’ makes the problem worse.” [Emphasis added]

My comment: This hypothetical regulator does not work at the CPSC. The aversion of the current Democratic CPSC leadership to not regulating is continually reinforced. Consider for instance, the CPSC’s willingness to make a mockery of protecting the public against harm in the definition of “Children’s Products”. In that recent master stroke, the Commission approved a rule that says that the musical instruments marketed to schools (even exclusively) will be unregulated (even if made entirely of “dangerous” brass) if the instruments are full-sized (a so-called general use item) BUT will fully regulate kid-sized instruments. Big instruments made of brass apparently do not deserve their regulatory attention but little ones do, even if BOTH are used exclusively by kids. Big instruments won’t poison kids but little ones will, apparently.

Spineless or just plain stupid – you make the call!

“Motivated reasoning means that we tend to believe what it is convenient for us to believe. If you run an organization called, say, the Asteroid Retargeting Group for Humanity (ARGH) and you are worried about potential cuts to your budget, we should not be surprised to find you overreacting to every space rock that passes by. Regulators rarely argue for deregulation.“

My comment: Ho-hum, has anyone EVER seen this at the CPSC? Since the WSJ metaphor relates to rocks, I would note that we must warn consumers that the rocks in our rock kits may contain lead which might be harmful if swallowed. We do NOT have to warn people that our rocks ALSO contain rocks – yet another reason to not to eat them. We also don’t warn consumers to not eat our fossils because it destroys the fossil record – but we do warn them about lead in fossils. Nice!

It’s so fun to contribute to making a mockery of safety! I find it gratifying (not).

“The focusing illusion partly stems from the fact that people tend to see the benefits of a policy but not the hidden costs. As French theorist Frédéric Bastiat argued, it’s a fallacy to think that breaking a window creates work, because while the glazier’s gain of work is visible, the tailor’s loss of work caused by the window-owner’s loss of money—and consequent decision to delay purchase of a coat—is not. Recent history is full of government interventions with this characteristic.”

My comment: Invisible costs are the true cancer of the CPSIA. I recently voted NO on a market expansion of our company into a product class that I felt would attract WAY too much regulatory attention at the maniacal CPSC these days. Why take a chance? With the government almost promoting the destruction of our industry and its supply chain (see today’s WSJ for yet another scare tactic by Inez Tenenbaum), there is just no reward for moving into certain markets. And how will the regulators measure this effect? There is no evidence of our choice to NOT enter a market. That must mean it never happened . . . right??? Perhaps that’s what they think. They only believe bodies (that are still warm and only if they are stacked high – and even then, we know that “anecdotes are not evidence”). No bodies are evident when you opt out.

Case closed?

“‘Affect heuristic’ is a fancy name for a pretty obvious concept, namely that we discount the drawbacks of things we are emotionally in favor of. For example, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill certainly killed about 1,300 birds, maybe a few more. Wind turbines in America kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds every year, generally of rarer species, such as eagles. Yet wind companies receive neither the enforcement, nor the opprobrium, that oil companies do.”

My comment: Or here’s an example from the CPSIA world: deaths from lead number just one, and injuries number just three (all alleged, none verified) over ll years (CPSC data) but deaths and injuries from swimming pools are greater on an average DAY. So what’s our national obsession, at least of the Democrats? Lead. Makes a lot of sense. Not.

The CPSC – it’s a psychologist’s dream . . . but it’s our nightmare.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Governmental Biases On Display at CPSC

CPSIA – Comment Letter on the "15 Month Rule"

August 3, 2010

Todd A. Stevenson
Director, Office of the Secretary
Room 820
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Agency: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

Re: Docket No. CPSC–2010-0038 Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification.

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

I am hereby submitting comments in response to the Solicitation of Comments on Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification (Docket No. CPSC–2010–0038) published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2010 (the “Proposed Rule”).

The End of (Business) Life As We Know It:

As I sit down to record my comments on this rule, I take comfort in knowing that the CPSC admits what it is doing here. In a section entitled “Caveats and Possible Market Reactions to Third Party Testing Requirements”, the agency acknowledges the severe impact of its new rule on manufacturers:

a. Significantly increased costs,
b. Incentive to redesign (presumably successful) products,
c. Incentive to reduce features on products,
d. Incentive to eliminate (presumably useful) components in finished goods,
e. Incentive to reduce product lines,
f. Exit the market altogether,
g. Go out of business,
h. Create barriers to entry for future business expansion, especially in specialty markets (non-mass market),
i. Devastate niche markets (noting particularly the “special needs” educational market – sorry, blind kids!), and
j. Incentive to delay or forgo product or manufacturing process improvements (to avoid testing costs).

Quite a stimulus program! Of course, the CPSC knows we can’t meet this challenge alone. In “The Potential Effects of the Proposed Rule”, the agency advises us to hire a few helpers:

a. Lawyers to review CPSC regulations,
b. Engineers and chemists to develop product specifications, conduct tests and design a program for production testing,
c. Statisticians or consultants to determine the frequency, sample size and collection method for production testing, and
d. Technicians, “perhaps working under the supervision of an engineer, chemist or similar professional”, to perform production tests.

This certainly is a Brave New World for us. Luckily we have the CPSC to tell us what to do. Unfortunately, we can’t afford an in-house legal department or teams of engineers, chemists or statisticians. We don’t even have technicians. Incredibly, somehow we bumble on in our blissful, almost charming ignorance, having had only one recall of 130 pieces (we recovered every unit) out of perhaps 1,000,000,000 units sold in the last 26 years. No doubt all the pain the CPSC is promising us will be worth it . . . gotta keep everyone so safe.

Seriously, Is Anyone Listening?

On page 28338 of the Federal Register, the Proposed Rule reproduces the “reasonable testing program” as it stood before the December 10-11, 2009 workshop at the CPSC. The workshop (which we attended with three people who were each asked to appear as a panelist) was ostensibly for the purpose of giving “stakeholder feedback” on the so-called “15 Month Rule” (the Proposed Rule) and the component testing rule (also up for comment today, posted under separate cover). We gave detailed feedback on these rules – none positive – yet the Proposed Rule seems to have preserved the original, deeply-flawed concepts intact.

It is difficult not to conclude that the process of providing feedback to this CPSC is a sham. While Chairman Tenenbaum has long touted her “policy” of seeking feedback from all stakeholders including industry, judging from this rule, the commitment to seeking feedback does not involve maintaining an open mind. It appears that the most likely feedback to be well-received is feedback that ratifies what the agency already plans to do. Other feedback is “wrong”, I guess. I doubt you will find this letter useful.

As time ebbs on and as the drumbeat of a CPSC bent on our destruction becomes more and more clear, the incentive to waste a few days preparing detailed comments also ebbs. Nevertheless, owing to the importance of this Proposed Rule, I am hereby submitting comments. I have no reason to be optimistic that you will consider my point of view with an open mind. This rule has all the earmarks of a fait accompli.

Deeply Flawed Economic Analysis.

The Proposed Rule devotes pages and pages to a tortured analysis of its purported compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”). This section of the Proposed Rule is a virtual admission of how unworkable the rule is (and the CPSIA testing scheme in general). As a starting point, the rule states: “The objective of the rule is to reduce the risk of injury from consumer products, especially from products intended for children aged 12 years and younger.” In my recent study of CPSC recall data posted on its website, I have found exactly ONE DEATH and THREE ASSERTED INJURIES from lead or lead-in-paint from 1999-2010. Please keep this statistic in mind as I review the economics of your “injury reduction” effort.

The flaws in the RFA analysis are clear in its discussion of testing costs for toys. The analysis acknowledges that it only accounts for out-of-pocket testing costs, nothing else. Significant additional (and ignored) costs include samples destroyed or damaged in testing, transportation of samples, administrative costs for managing testing, administration costs for managing the testing data, administrative costs for managing recordkeeping, an allocation of general management time, legal expenses relating to testing and so on. Depending on the scale of the business, I estimate that these costs (and distractions) will add 15%-50% to the out-of-pocket testing costs.

The RFA analysis concludes that testing a typical toy will cost $1,262 per product. As an average, this might be a good number for our business. I would note, however, that the Proposed Rule posits that we will test multiple samples, sending in perhaps four separate samples per item to satisfy the bizarre “required high degree of assurance” standard. [The rule states clearly that testing one sample is never enough. Interestingly, we have never had the experience in the last 20 years that multiple safety tests of the same product reveals anything useful other than rapidly approaching poverty.] The rule’s four-sample regime takes the testing cost per toy up to $4,848 (by the calculation in the document) plus another $2,500 for mechanical tests (because the rule posits that we will submit FIFTY samples for mechanical tests). That brings us up to $7,348 per item, plus 54 destroyed samples. This implies a rough “all-in” cost of $10,000 per item. We have 1,500 catalog items in our product line. Without a “reasonable testing program” in place (see below), we will have to test each item annually. This is a cost of $15 million for our company EVERY YEAR. [We also sell custom items, a business that would presumably be terminated by this testing rule. That’s several jobs down the drain.]

Does it surprise you to know that $15 million in testing costs exceeds our annual profit? By far?

The RFA analysis is deeply flawed in other ways, too. The rule duly reports that “[a]ccording to a representative of a trade association, there are an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 individual toys on the market.” Oh, really? Perhaps the CPSC shouldn’t have consulted the International Hubcap Manufacturers Association for this information. A quick visit to the Amazon.com website reveals listings of 808,465 toys and games on August 3rd (http://amzn.to/djtTVX). Amazon is a customer of ours – I estimate that they list about one-third of all toys and games sold in the consumer market. Call it 2.5 million toys and games available to consumers in the U.S. But that’s not all – the category also includes specialty items not present on consumer sites. For instance, our industry, the education industry, is largely invisible on consumer sites. I estimate that about one million SKUs are available to purchase at the annual convention of the International Reading Association. Millions of other SKUs are displayed at the national math show, the national science show and the national early childhood show. Add in special needs and other sub-markets – and you get well in excess of 4-5 million toys and games. So the RFA analysis might be off by 100x in its assessment of the toy market ALONE. That’s not close. . . .

The RFA analysis goes on to conclude that the ENTIRE MARKET of products affected by the rule is 100,000–150,000 products. This includes “wearing apparel, accessories, jewelry, juvenile products, children’s furniture, etc.”, plus non-children’s products and other children’s products like ATVs, bikes, bunk beds and so on. It is hard to dignify this ridiculous data with a retort, except to note that it is absurd on its face. The apparel industry ALONE offers as many as 8,000,000 different children’s SKUs for sale. The RFA analysis is fatally flawed.

At $10,000 per SKU, the projected children’s product testing costs will easily exceed $50 billion per year. Remember the 11-year CPSC statistic on lead deaths and injuries – one death and three ASSERTED injuries? [There are no recorded injuries from phthalates or cadmium, by the way.] The 11-year compliance cost will exceed $550 billion (in 2010 dollars), expended by U.S. companies to “reduce” this risk of injury. It would cost a lot less to wrap every American child in bubble wrap.

Small Businesses CANNOT SURVIVE THIS RULE.

Assuming we are supposed to take this rule seriously, the Proposed Rule is perhaps the best friend of the mass market yet invented by an agency seemingly bent on the destruction of the small business community. This letter documents again and again the unrealistic expectations and assumptions made by the authors of this rule with respect to businesses in general and small businesses in particular. Thousands of small businesses of every stripe and color will be affected by this rule. Are you seriously thinking that they will all hire statisticians, chemists and engineers to prepare the reams of data, plans and reports the CPSC expects? Once this massive, herculean effort is completed, who will be safer anyhow? I can think of someone – mass market companies who have been handed a game-ending cost advantage on a silver platter by the CPSC. This, combined with mass market companies’ ability to create certified firewalled in-house labs, favors the big guy dramatically. No wonder the rule states again and again how prejudicial this rule is to small business. The CPSC knows what it’s doing.

Small businesses will strain to even understand what is expected of them. The rule is obtuse, long-winded and full of arcania. Small business people may not have the time or skills to master this complex rule. When the CPSC turns to its attention to enforcement (as promised for 2011) and selects a few small businesses to whip into shape, the market will take note of the pain and a mass exit will result. I realize, however, that Cassandra-like predictions haven’t influenced the CPSC in recent times. One of the Commissioners has even been quoted as saying that “anecdotes aren’t evidence”. It feels like we have to die to prove we were right. A few small businesses might just do that, if the agency waits long enough.

The Commission has asked for feedback on how to address these issues. The complexity of the CPSIA safety rules proves that they are unworkable. To repair this damage, the Commission must ask Congress to restore its ability to assess risk. I am assuming that the Commission would exercise this discretion with more common sense than is embodied in this rule. CPSC rules should be trimmed back to things that MATTER, only. Second, the agency should build its rules and its enforcement activity around DATA. Injury statistics tell the agency what is important. If a particular hazard generates ONE DEATH AND THREE ASSERTED INJURIES OVER 11 YEARS, you can safely relax your rules quite a bit (there are worse problems out there). Education might make a difference, however.

Finally, the Commission should NOT take ANY step if there is EVEN A SHRED OF DOUBT about the impact on small business. Small business is the major jobs creator in America. When you promulgate rules that choke the life out of small business or sharply reduce their incentive to invest, you are killing our economy. You have a heavy responsibility to keep this place running, even if it’s an imperfect world. While it’s sad that a child ever dies, the pain and suffering imposed on countless families from lost jobs, lost capital, lost access to needed products, and so on likely far exceeds it.

Reasonable Testing Program – Busy Work to Keep Us From Running Our Businesses.

The “Reasonable Testing Program” (“RTP”) represents a choice presented to manufacturers of children’s products under this rule. If we endure the expense and disruption of a RTP, we can cut our testing frequency (read, testing costs) in half. A very tempting prospect but the cost of a RTP seems too high, leaving us with a Hobson’s Choice. We can’t afford annual testing and we cannot afford a RTP. What should we do? What will anyone do?

Owing to the burden and complexity of RTPs, I predict EVERY REGULATED COMPANY will violate these rules. Since Ms. Tenenbaum has promised to turn to enforcement in 2011, the CPSC regulators should have a pretty easy time finding juicy targets. Every company will provide wonderful enforcement opportunities.

Although our testing program has been highly-effective over the last 26 years, our program would never meet these standards. We do not maintain the volume of paperwork that the new CPSC rule now requires. We know what we’re doing, but we have not organized our files into a how-to manual. Perhaps the agency thinks every company in the country is an ISO 9001 company. They’re not, and this kind of documentation is rare and breathtakingly expensive to prepare.

Having endured the CPSIA spectacle for two years now, I do not trust the seemingly flexible definition of necessary documentation. The pattern is that these seemingly open-ended terms (which may or may not describe our current recordkeeping) will mature into something rigid down the line. Even if they don’t, we still face the risk that we will not measure up to the expectations of the CPSC enforcement officer at the time of reckoning. The feeling that we are being set up is inescapable. As noted above, given our record of performance, the agency should have NO concerns about how we go about our business. Nonetheless, I feel certain that these rules will bite me in the future.

Sample selection under the rule should not be based on any statistical formula (per the baffling presentation of Dr. Michael Greene at the December 2009 workshop). If the overall safety results of the company are strong, the choice of samples by the company or factories should be presumed compliant without further inquiry. Random selection (taking one off the shelf . . . without the assistance of a statistician) works just fine in our experience, and there is no evidence that testing multiple samples will accomplish anything but will certainly raise costs. Better sampling won’t lower injury rates that already approach zero.

We currently do not use production testing and have zero production testing plans in place. With one recall in 26 years, I would assert this kind of testing is superfluous in our business and basically useless from a safety standpoint. It will significantly raise costs, however. The tedious exercise of preparing a pallet load of production testing plans to meet the new requirements is just plain busy work. One must ask what the CPSC was thinking when it penned this description of a production testing plan: “A production testing plan may include recurring testing or the use of process management techniques such as control charts, statistical process control programs, or failure modes and effects analysis (FMEAs) designed to control potential variations in product manufacturing that could affect the product’s ability to comply with the applicable rules, bans, standards or regulations.” Fancy words but . . . what planet are they from?

The requirement to list all the tests applicable to our items, again and again, to satisfy the RTP requirements is typical of mindless busy work asked of us. Does the CPSC think this will make ANY difference? Most businesses confirm safety tests with their testing lab partners anyhow. More bureaucracy, taken to new heights.

We don’t have any remedial plans in place either. We are quite familiar with how to appropriately resolve compliance and quality issues, and have never had a problem with regulators in the exercise of our business judgment. The requirement to prepare a detailed written plan, just in case we have another recall in the next 26 years, is pure officiousness. This is yet another waste of our time, our money, our resources and our intellect.

The recordkeeping requirements of a RTP is well beyond our ability or interest to preserve for 1500 products produced in thousands of lots over the course of a year. Taking a “Dear Diary” approach to how we source, test, move, remediate, repair, investigate and otherwise manage children’s products is completely unreasonable. This is especially ridiculous given our track record.

The Commission has asked what a RTP might cost us. I have a hard time estimating it because all the fun in our business would be gone. If we had to endure the bureaucratic nightmare this rule envisions, if anyone actually expects us to do all this to make simple plastic toys for schools, I would have to seriously consider our alternatives. So it might cost us our entire company. That’s the whole enchilada, guys.

Remember, we don’t have to make children’s products, nor do we have to stick around for the next act of this tragedy. If the CPSC persists in ruining what was once a rather safe industry with a strong track record, the cost will be the entire market for children’s products.

Is that a high enough price to give you pause? I know, I know, more anecdotes . . . .

The Requirement to Document Procedures against Undue Influence is Unreasonable.

The “Undue Influence Procedures” requirement (“UIP”) is essentially a requirement to document efforts to avoid fraud. If you’re not inclined to commit fraud, there’s little reason to set out your plan to not commit fraud. Here’s our current policy – “Don’t break the law or commit fraud”. This has worked well for us, as we have never exerted undue influence in the last 26 years and have no plans to start now.

I am really sorry that there are bad people in the world, some small number of which may have at one time attempted to exert undue influence over one or more test labs. Perhaps the CPSC should concern themselves with the bad guys and leave the rest of us alone.

Material Change Rules Place Too Much Risk on Manufacturers.

The CPSC’s rule on when to test after a “material change” is sufficiently open-ended to render the judgment on when to test fairly obvious – ALWAYS TEST. Deep within the Proposed Rule, Section 1107.10(b)(2)(ii) instructs “A material change is any change in the product’s design, manufacturing process, or sourcing of component parts that a manufacturer exercising due care knows, or should know, could affect the product’s ability to comply with the rules . . . .” “Due care” is defined as “the degree of care that a prudent and competent person engaged in the same line of business or endeavor would exercise under similar circumstances.”

In other words, the agency’s 20-20 hindsight can construct a case for testing for a material change for just about anything that “might” or “could” affect results or that a hypothetical “prudent person” might think of investigating. Of course, this issue only comes up in the context of an injury or a recall, so what are the odds that any judgment to NOT test would withstand inquiry by an angry CPSC? Zilch. So either you always test or you take a big risk. This is completely unfair and unreasonable.

Testing Frequency Must Be Left to the Manufacturer and to the Market.

A rule requiring manufacturers to test according to these standards every year is going to kill us and many other businesses. No one can afford the testing scheme outlined above, we least of all. If we must test according to these standards, we will be out of business quickly. It is equally unrealistic to imagine that testing cost savings from maintaining a RTP will hold much appeal since that project is so wasteful and gargantuan. Of course, a firewalled in-house lab would be nice for all of us small businesses, but that’s unrealistic, too (not to mention undesirable). We have no realistic way to moderate these costs. Please see my other August 3 comment letter for an explanation of why I believe component and composite testing will likewise provide no relief.

Testing is supposed to assure product quality and compliance. If we have a good, long term record of safety, why can’t we just carry on as we have, and deal with issues as they arise? That worked for 26 years. The new way is just unaffordable.

The “High Degree of Assurance” Standard is Unreasonable and Not Derived from the CPSIA.

The rule seems to conclude that a “high degree of assurance” is a necessary element of any “reasonable testing program”. The importance of the “reasonable testing program” which was incorporated into the CPSIA as an alternative to third party testing for non-children’s products, has been imputed to the children’s product area as a way to reduce testing frequency, and with it, the “high degree of assurance” standard (“HDA”) was likewise imputed. Thus, sliding down this slippery slope, the HDA standard has become part and parcel of the “15 Month Rule”. Abracadabra.

The Commission has requested feedback on the meaning of the definition of HDA in Section 1107.2. Happily, the agency has rejected a strict statistical interpretation requiring “95% probability” of compliance. What should the definition be interpreted to mean? The “high degree of assurance” should be based on an overall assessment of the safety record of the company. It should NOT be based on the results of an individual product, even if recalled or deemed dangerous. In our case, we have done business for 26 years, had one recall of 130 pieces of out of about 1,000,000,000 pieces sold. All of these units were recovered. Thus, we believe there is zero probability that a recalled product is in the market. Our historical recall rate is approximately 130/1,000,000,000 or 0.00001% over a 26-year period.

With this record over so many years, our company should be deemed to have satisfied this HDA requirement and be endorsed as having a reasonable testing program without further inquiry. And if we DON’T deserve the HDA designation, then the CPSC should articulate what level of safety achievement would earn the designation.

Notably, the entire children’s product industry also meets this requirement. Of the 899 recalls of children’s products from 1999-2010, only one death and three asserted injuries from lead were recorded by the CPSC. Thus, the probability of being injured from lead by a children’s product is nearly zero, given that literally billions of children’s products are sold every year. [The apparel and footwear industry claims annual sales of about 4 billion units ALONE.] Industry recall rates are likewise well under 1% per annum. With injury statistics and recall rates in hand, the CPSC should GREATLY loosen the strictures of the “high degree of assurance” standard to focus its resources on activities that might actually injure someone.

One-to-One Product Testing Will Punish the Smallest Companies.

The prophylactic approach to testing adopted by the CPSC will inevitably put many small or micro businesses into bankruptcy, or drive them into unregulated markets to avoid the CPSIA’s wasteful bureaucratic costs. If the law does not permit the agency to adopt sensible rules that allow businesses to manage their compliance risk as best they can (where the standards remain in place, but the government stops trying to tell businesses HOW to comply), then the Commission must finally tell Mr. Waxman what he doesn’t want to hear – that his law is broken and can’t be fixed. [Notably, these mini businesses most at risk have an exemplary record of safety and very low recall rates. NOTHING is gained by rules that crush the little guy.]

We in the small business community have suffered for two solid years while regulators have sought any possible way to avoid delivering this “unpleasant” message. I get the impression that the demise of our businesses would not be too great a cost for the agency to incur to avoid telling Congress what it doesn’t want to hear. If the Commission is genuinely interested in a fix, it must take action with Congress. I do not believe the agency can devise sensible regulations to fix this problem short of a legislative change.

Ban on Retesting Will Unnecessarily Create Crises at Small Businesses.

In our experience, test labs are neither infallible nor definitive in their understanding of U.S. safety laws and regulations. It is not unusual to experience failed test reports for reasons besides safety problems. In addition, children’s products are not so pure and perfect in their composition that every test produces the same result. The CPSC itself instructed manufacturers to audit their test labs in the ironically-dated April 1, 2010 version of the Proposed Rule in response to industry complaints that test results varied from test lab to test lab. By forbidding retesting, the Proposed Rule removes discretion and appropriate problem resolution techniques from a commonplace quality event. You don’t need to manage a very large portfolio of products before the probability of an ordinary course testing problem rises exponentially. This is a matter of mathematics. If retesting is banned, the CPSC is legislating a crisis of the week.

Again, CPSC injury data informs us that the nature of the problem is extremely modest. Historical injury rates are VERY low. This retesting rule is completely unnecessary and penal to all companies except perhaps mass market companies with greater resources. Small businesses won’t have teams of engineers or statisticians around to save the day. Many small businesses will naively call the CPSC for “help”, only to find out that they have created a worse crisis. Some small businesses may miss this point in the Proposed Rule and continue to retest, only to be punished later when the CPSC finds evidence of retesting at the time of a recall. Is this really how you want to regulate?

I would note that the justification for all this is bad acts: “[Retesting] may tempt unscrupulous parties to attempt to ‘test the product into compliance’. . . .” To my knowledge, this behavior has little precedence and even so, it is an abuse that can be dealt with other ways. If honorable and law-abiding companies use retesting to resolve honest problems, no harm is being done. Punishing good guys because you are afraid that otherwise bad guys might benefit is excessive and inappropriately harsh.

The 10,000 Piece Limit for One-Time Testing is Arbitrary and Unfair.

The CPSC has failed to persuade that the 10,000 limit is an appropriate break point for testing. First of all, the limit is cumulative, not related to sales in a period or per annum. Second, the threshold bears no relationship to risk of injury. In other words, it’s completely arbitrary. Why 10,000? Why not? In my view, that’s not enough to justify this rule. Many of the micro businesses that might benefit from this rule have NEVER had a recall. These are the people this rule will restrict. And the logic of this is . . . what, exactly?

Even more remarkable is the rule’s insistence that these low volume items be tested annually after passing the 10,000 piece threshold. Small companies will never have a RTP so annual testing (or more frequently, if for instance the item is hand-assembled) will be mandated. Consider a product selling 2,000 piece per year. Under these rules, the incentive to drop it once it crosses the 10,000 threshold will be powerful. This reminds me of the incentive on small businesses to not hire a 26th employee to avoid an onslaught of Obamacare obligations. A tacit cap on sales will be imposed by this rule. Nice!

The solution to this problem is to require one-time testing before sale, and thereafter according to the business judgment of the manufacturer. Remember, the retailers that buy from the manufacturer will also have something to say about testing frequency, too. Not all solutions are better if imposed by the government.

Alternative Testing Technologies.

The ability to test at low cost with XRF is attractive. For our business, it is tempting to use an XRF gun but for two reasons: (a) cost, and (b) health risk. XRF guns cost $30,000 each and have high annual maintenance costs (several thousand dollars a year). We might need several guns to manage our inventory volumes, a very costly prospect. XRF guns are portable x-ray machines. Notwithstanding the assurance of XRF gun manufacturers, I am quite reluctant to place an x-ray machine in the hands of a warehouse worker in our facility. This is an invitation to disaster. We likewise have no interest in hiring a highly-paid technician to wield the gun, or technicians to wield the guns. In any event, we cannot expose our employees to a possible risk of x-ray genetic damage. I am surprised that the CPSC doesn’t take this risk more seriously. Is lead a worse problem than x-rays?

In any event, I fail to understand what would be accomplished by a XRF solution for small businesses. The process of XRF testing may be inexpensive, but would be disruptive. In any event, I don’t see a connection to safety so I prefer a solution that restores sanity to our safety practices. Burning in a wasteful and disruptive process will only bog down our economy and our competitiveness. Until the CPSC can point to a risk factor relating to the little guys, one cannot rationally conclude that XRF makes this regulation better, just somewhat less worse.

In sum, the Proposed Rule is a dangerous rule with the acknowledged prospect of doing severe market damage. The CPSC knows this, having admitted it in writing in the text of the rule. There is no excuse to push forward with a defective rule on this scale. The Commission must talk honestly with Congress . . . before it’s too late.

Thank you for considering my views on this important subject.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
380 North Fairway Drive
Vernon Hills, IL 60061

Read more here:
CPSIA – Comment Letter on the "15 Month Rule"

CPSIA – Phebe Phillips Leaves Toy Biz Over CPSIA

Phebe Phillips, subject of our Casualty of the Week feature on December 4, recounted her story of CPSIA travails in a commencement address at the Texas Women’s University on May 14. In her address entitled “Everything is Perfect . . . I Changed!”, Ms. Phillips discussed how the CPSIA forced her into her new career as a nutritionist after years of success as a toymaker. She sums up her journey: “I stand before you as an example that change will be with you your entire life, that one is never too old or set in their ideas to change and on occasion a glass of lemonade, made from life’s lemons, can taste pretty good.”

Life’s lemons – that’s a little harsh, isn’t it, for something as wondrous as the CPSIA? I bet Mr. Waxman agrees with Ms. Phillips – if we would only relax, we would learn to really enjoy the CPSIA and its effect on our businesses and our lives. Look at all the benefits that Phebe Phillips experienced – it only drove her out of the business she started as a young graduate of Southern Methodist University in 1983 and out of the industry she loved so much. There is no sign that Ms. Phillips’ products ever harmed a single child. Nonetheless, we can rejoice at how safe everyone is now . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – Phebe Phillips Leaves Toy Biz Over CPSIA

CPSIA – Happy Pool and Spa Safety Week!

Happy Pool and Spa Safety Week! The CPSC this week strode bravely forth to combat pool fatalities in the United States – finally. I have written about swimming pool deaths in the past (as early as May 26, 2009 in this blog and earlier in letters to Congress). They are shocking in number. The CPSC says that deaths in pools and spas AVERAGE 385 children per year from, 2005-1007. Of this average, 299 victims were (on average) YOUNGER THAN FIVE YEARS OLD.

The childhood pool injury count is even more breathtaking. For pools, submersion injuries requiring emergency room treatment averages 4,200 children per year (47% were for two- and three-year-olds), or 46,200 projected submersion injuries to go with the projected 4,235 childhood drowning deaths over 11 years.

Whoa. This is shameful.

In the same 11-year period, CPSC recall data notes ONE death from lead and THREE injuries from lead. You read that right:

• Pools: 4,235 drowning deaths and 46,200 injuries
• Lead: 1 death and 3 injuries

There are no phthalates injuries on record.

The CPSIA addressed pool safety. A highly-publicized section of the CPSIA is known as the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool And Spa Safety Act (the “Baker Act”). This law was implemented in response to the tragic pool drain entrapment death of the granddaughter of former Secretary of State James Baker. The CPSC cites 11 fatalities from pool drain entrapment from 1999-2008. Over 11 years, at this rate, 12 pool drain entrapment deaths would be projected. The Baker Act dictates that pools replace their drain covers to avoid this awful risk. Not an unreasonable approach to a completely avoidable source of injury, at a relatively low cost. Good idea.

It is, however, apparent that the Baker Act does not address the overall massive risk of childhood pool drownings. Of the projected 4,235 deaths in an 11-year period, the Baker Act addresses the cause of only 12 deaths. That leaves the projected deaths of 4,223 children completely unaddressed by our ever-vigilant Congress.

Remember, according to my analysis, compliance costs for the CPSIA are about $10,000 per dollar of avoided lead injury costs. Each death is valued at $6.1 million using EPA estimates. The projected unaddressed pool drownings have a “cost” of $6.1 million x 4,223 = $25.8 Billion over 11 years. At the same rate of compliance costs incurred by the lucky companies attempting to comply with the lead rules, the pool industry would have to spend $10,000 per dollar of injury cost over 11 years, or a mere $257.6 trillion. At this rate of spend, the industry would only have to spend $23.4 trillion per annum which happens to be nearly double the projected 2010 U.S. GDP of $14.8 trillion.

But who’s counting?

And how did our Congress respond to the threat of childhood pool drownings? Surely they really threw the book at this terrible problem – it is literally thousands of times worse than lead. Ummm, well, they mandated a public awareness campaign (see Section 1407 of the Baker Act). The CPSC blitz is the effort to comply with this master plan: a press release, a new website and a “a first-of-its-kind national public education effort”. Apparently, all you need is a few ads and press releases to solve pool deaths.

Strangely, the CPSC is straying from their newly-adopted precautionary principles in this blitz. They actually recommend a strategy of “staying close, being alert, and watching children at the pool”. Huh, you’ve got to be kidding! That sounds a lot like individual responsibility. The CPSC even refers to the need for a “personal system of safety”. Being a good parent and keeping an eye on your kids is so “Old School”. I assumed that the CPSC had moved beyond such shallow advice. They would certainly never do that for lead. Of course not.

I should note that I have long considered the effort to combat pool deaths to be long overdue, so don’t get me wrong. I think it’s great that the CPSC is actually doing something. Pool deaths claim WAY too many kids’ lives every year – we need to take a real threat like this very seriously. But please pardon my waves of nausea over the proportionality of the response. Pool deaths are expected to exceed 4,000 over 11 years (including more than 3,000 kids under five), and in response the CPSC puts up a new website and produces public service announcements with Olympic swimmers. Lead deaths are expected to be one or zero in the next 11 years – and we have to spend $5.6 billion every year in compliance costs.

This is terrible government in its purest form. It is indefensible and incomprehensible. I defy the Democrats to stand up and actually defend their policy positions or legislative solutions. They won’t debate the issue because it’s a total loser for them. The children’s product industry is collateral damage to the Dems’ reelection campaigns. Well, I won’t just grin and bear it. Falling on the sword for their ridiculous sound bites and reelection posturing is not how I plan to go out.

This is un-American. Happy Pool and Spa Safety Week.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Happy Pool and Spa Safety Week!

CPSIA – New Waxman Amendment Draft Issued Tonight, Mark-up Set for Wednesday Morning

The third draft of the Waxman Amendment 2.0 was released this evening. I have attached a clean copy of the legislation, as well as a redline for your convenience. The powers-that-be also released a draft of their “report language“. The report language is interpretative language and is not included in the law mainly to keep future law clerks busy doing research. It should also give us something new to argue about.

This is the Committee Briefing Memo accompanying the draft legislation.

Consistent with past practice, this draft was issued with the usual coercion. A mark-up has been scheduled for Wednesday AM 10:00 a.m. in Room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building BUT the Dems will decide tomorrow if they will proceed with that process. All talk of a hearing to vet this legislation has been quashed by the Dems who are scrupulous in managing the record. [I will never get to testify, that's for sure.] There will be a meeting on Tuesday at 4 PM to discuss this draft, at which point the Dems will either pull the plug or move forward. Presumably, this depends on the enthusiastic response to this draft. The Dems say they want a bipartisan bill and further want to send it to the Senate with the news that the bill is “supported by industry”. In other words, Mr. Waxman is not interested in negotiating with the Senate, just wants their rubber stamp. He’s not big on “jawboning” if that means he has to listen to others and make concessions . . . .

You are right to consider this another patented Waxman “take it or leave it” offer.

In response to complaints that this bill ignores the many legitimate concerns of the small business community, Waxman staff has advised that they “can’t help everyone”. That means you, guys.

Changes in this Draft:

a. Functional Purpose “Exception” – Minimal changes, mainly reverting back to the “public health or safety” test formulation. References to “all foreseeable users” is gone now. The “town hall” provision allowing “interested parties” to intervene in every proceeding has been eliminated. The “Previously Denied Petitions” provision is unchanged and still makes no sense.

The report language clarifies the meaning of “practicable”, noting that excessive or unreasonable costs should be considered not “practicable”. Specifically, they note: “The Committee does not consider a mere increase in the cost of manufacture or production, in itself, to be excessive. The Committee does expect that the Commission will consider compliance to be impracticable where compliance would place the viability and continuation of a class of products or materials in jeopardy, such as youth All Terrain Vehicles or youth bicycles made with recycled steel.” [Emphasis added]

In case you were wondering about the purpose of the functional purpose exception, it is a gift to the noted industries. It’s not for you. Remember, this relief is only available to those who are capable of mounting an exception application. Not a small undertaking.

Remember that the applicant for a functional purpose exception must apply for relief for a “specific product or material”. You must also PROVE that your costs are not “practicable”. Can you see some wiggle room there? A true believer Commission might have very little incentive to interpret these terms permissively. [You can count on that one with the Dems in charge.] This will be a costly and technical process. Think of this in the context of your business – is this realistic? With our 1500 products, it’s just inconceivable. Too bad for us. Let’s also not forget the stringency of the three-prong test.

The report language specifies that a “measurable adverse effect” on public health or safety refers to changes in blood lead levels. The language is pretty specific and will require a toxicologist’s report to justify any exemption. Here are the magic words: “Given that there is no current blood level at which the scientific community considers lead exposure to be ‘safe,’ the Committee understands that a very small adverse effect may theoretically occur at any level of exposure. The Committee intends, however, for the Commission to deny requests for exception under this section as having a ‘measurable adverse effect’ on health or safety only in the case of those adverse effects that the Commission determines to be empirically, as opposed to theoretically, measurable. At present, the Committee understands that there is scientific consensus to interpret the phrase ‘measurable adverse effect’ from lead exposure to mean a measurable increase in blood lead levels.“

This is a form of legislative filter to make sure that the exception is only for the chosen industries or companies. Again, this isn’t meant for small fry, just big business. That’s equity these days, I guess.

Anyone remember how hotly the Dems defended the inclusion of ATVs and bikes in this law back in ’08 and ’09? It was intentional, they insisted, necessary to protect the public against deadly lead. There’s no safe level of lead, blah blah blah. Guess they got over that one . . . after they received 170,000 emails from ATV’rs.

b. Thrift Store Relief: Virtually no change, other than minor clarifications.

Not unlike the workings of other parts of the CPSIA, this new provision will be good for large scale thrift organizations like Goodwill or Salvation Army who are presumably able to centrally evaluate complex laws and implement system-wide responses to changes in law. i wonder how the smaller independent Mom-and-Pops will react to this provision. In any event, the provision tacitly bans resale of children’s jewelry, painted toys and vinyl children’s products. Stores will have to keep straight which items are in and which are out. With many resale stores staffed with minimum wage workers, I question how effectively most owners can prevent violations without just avoiding the category (at least in part).

Resale of childcare articles, including cribs, seems unaffected. The real gotcha is the risk the stores will bear from recalls. For that reason, I think many stores will stay away from reselling this category of goods. Clothing may make a reappearance in resale shops, finally.

It is uncredible that the Democrats let this industry flap in the wind for almost two years before acting to save them from CPSIA oblivion. Think of the economic devastation these insensitive legislators wrought on small businesses all America, not to mention the patrons of this important industry – through two cold winters. This is just inexcusable, a true demonstration of stubbornness or being completely out of touch. Those who suffered at the hands of the Dem inaction have no recourse, either. Shame, shame.

c. Relief for Small Batch Manufacturers: The sham of this “relief” is perpetuated in this new draft. The definitions of “covered products” and “Small Batch Manufacturer” were left structurally intact but the thresholds were tweaked upward meaninglessly to 7500 units or $50,000 sold per item per (calendar) year, with an overall cap of company sales of $1 million. “Covered Products” oddly continues to refer only to manufactured items but Small Batch Manufacturers are defined by sales of manufactured OR imported goods. Go figure.

As I pointed out earlier today, Mattell and Hasbro have quarterly revenues of $880 million and $672 million, respectively. The so-called relief here is for companies with annual revenue of under $1 million. If these little companies pop over that revenue hurdle, they will be held to the same standard as Mattel and Hasbro. Don’t worry, the CPSC plans to coach the little guys! Now if only they could provide non-recourse financing . . . .

Even if you are salivating over this pathetic crumb of “relief”, I encourage you to reread what goodies Mr. Waxman is giving you. Here’s the meat of it: “Any such alternative requirements shall provide for reasonable testing methods to assure compliance with the relevant consumer product safety standards.” The reasonable TESTING METHODS must ASSURE COMPLIANCE. You tell me what this English sentence means. I think it means the small fry will be testing. I know the rest of us will, too. Testing and testing and testing and testing. It’s time to buy stock in Intertek, I think. Later on, the bill instructs the Commission to work “cooperatively” with the little guys to “impose the least burdensome testing requirements . . . consistent with goals of statute.” And those goals are, what exactly? Comprehensive, prophylactic testing.

Oh, the bounty of this relief!

d. Phthlates and Inaccessible Components: No material changes.

e. Subpoena Power: No changes whatsoever. Somebody’s going to be sorry someday that this procedural speed bump was removed. Unfettered power of government was always un-American . . . until we met these Democrats.

Conclusion:

I wish I could recommend this bill. It has some good stuff in it. Unfortunately, it is utterly ineffective to arrest the damage being inflicted by the CPSIA. It is a gift to large industries but leaves the hammerlock on American small businesses catering children’s markets. It sustains the fantastic notion that those of us in this business have somehow been poisoning kids for years or decades. That’s a slanderous notion, something deeply offensive to me, but for the Dems to admit otherwise would mean a mea culpa. And there’s no chance of that.

If the Dems manage to tempt enough corporate entities to sell out for this low price, it will be the biggest gift ever given by the corporate community to Mr. Waxman. He should host a champagne party for himself if he buys off the resistance. There will be no remaining organized opposition to the bulk of his CPSIA handiwork, and the focus will shift to surviving a manic CPSC bent on enforcing voluminous but ineffective safety rules and ladling out massive penalties for infractions without injuries. And once the action moves permanently to Bethesda, we’ll see finally how much Cassandra got right.

I’m not looking forward to finding out. Vote NO on Waxman.

Read more here:
CPSIA – New Waxman Amendment Draft Issued Tonight, Mark-up Set for Wednesday Morning

CPSIA – What Constitutes "Safe"?

One of the tragedies of the CPSIA melodrama is that the consumer groups have completely hijacked the concept of safety, turning it utterly away from concepts of risk assessment. To what, you say? Away from management of identifiable risks to avoidance/elimination of perceived risks. In other words, Congress and our regulators now ignore the data on risk and focus instead on the possibility of risk. The POSSIBILITY of injury, not the actuality of injury.

How much of a difference is this? Pretty big, to judge by the frenzy over cadmium in jewelry. Seven Senators have sponsored a bill called the Safe Kids’ Jewelry Act. This law would ban the use of cadmium in kids’ jewelry. Is this “good”? I am not sure how to answer that. To my knowledge, no one has identified a single injury from cadmium in children’s jewelry. It is undeniable that cadmium is a bad element and has the potential to harm. Ergo, jewelry with cadmium is “bad”? I can imagine circumstances where cadmium in jewelry might hurt a child. Then again, if it were so dangerous, where are all the victims?

If this is going to be the new standard, whether a product MIGHT harm someone, I think we are cooked. Assuming that “prevention of possible injury” is to be used as the standard to evaluate products or components of products, let me ask a few questions to see if I understand the “new rules of the road”:

• How certain must the prospect of injury be?
• How specific must the circumstances of the prospective injury be?
• Are we talking about probable injury (more than 50%) or possible injury (odds greater than 0%)? How are those odds to be measured – by unit sold, by contact, by owner, by year, by lifetime use? What’s “reasonable”? [Does anyone care what's reasonable?]
• Are all things that could possibly injure a child now illegal on the same basis?
• If the answer is yes, when will all those other products be banned and/or recalled? Is equity in the treatment of all products “important”?
• If the answer is no, then where do we draw the line?
• How relevant is it that no injuries have been reported?
• How many incidents are required before we declare a product or substance illegal or recalled? How many newspaper articles, editorials or CEH lawsuits are required?
• What responsibility do we have to be consistent in the administration of these rules?

Consistency, that’s important, don’t you think? If cadmium is now tacitly illegal because it might harm a child, do we have to make everything with the possibility of injury to children illegal?

Presumably, since no injuries to children from cadmium has been reported and the Washington Post confirms that doctors do not perceive cadmium as a serious risk (perhaps because it was not prevalent in house paint or in gasoline, hmmm), then anything with the same level of prospective risk would be illegal. That’s more or less everything from water to chicken bones to lead to ruthenium. [Pardon me, ruthenium, one of the world's most expensive and dangerous elements, is a-okay to include in children's products.] Why then aren’t we closing swimming pools which cause more than 250 deaths each year? What about water – you can drown in two inches of water. No more showers?

Is there something special about cadmium, besides that it has appeared in an Associated Press article?

The mania over the prevention of possible injury has turned the business environment into a feeding frenzy that will drive the business community down, down, down. Is that in anyone’s interest? Will we all be safer if we have nothing to buy?

Please consider that the House Energy and Commerce Committee has today weighed in on the Toyota recall. Yes, the same Henry Waxman who is torturing our industry has now turned his talons and sharp teeth on Toyota. Toyota enjoys one of the finest reputations for quality and service in the world. It is renowned as a business leader – and proactively took strong medicine in its gas pedal recall. This is not enough for the venomous Democrats who hate businesses. They need to dig deeper and perhaps damage Toyota enough to help GM and Chrysler, owned by the U.S. government and unions. Bringing the great low, that’s the new American way of the Democrats. It makes me SICK.

I want to close with a note about cows – did you know that cows are killers, too? Yes, they are – the New York Times reports:

“The image of cows as placid, gentle creatures is a city slicker’s fantasy, judging from an article, published on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reporting that about 20 people a year are killed by cows in the United States. In some cases, the cows actually attack humans — ramming them, knocking them down, goring them, trampling them and kicking them in the head — resulting in fatal injuries to the head and chest.”

COWS kill 20 people a year, cadmium has apparently killed ZERO. We are running pell-mell to ban cadmium from jewelry because a misguided newspaper article fueled panic. Are cows next? Should they be? If cadmium jewelry goes away and cows stay unregulated, will respect for our laws remain?

Respect for Congress, that’s another thing.

Read more here:
CPSIA – What Constitutes "Safe"?

CPSIA – Educational Company Woes under the CPSIA

Michael Warring, President of American Educational Products, was quoted in the Nov/Dec issue of NSSEA Essentials in an article called “Realities of the Recession” as follows:

“The resources that we have to invest to comply with CPSIA are truly wasted. The human cost is incredible, never mind the waste of physical and cash resources. I anticipate that CPSIA will generate four to eight hours a year of work for every product that we sell – we will be measuring it in man-years. Existing regulations prior to CPSIA were adequate, and like many regulatory requirements, only needed adequate funding to be completely effective. The timing could not have been worse for our industry.”

. . . .

“As mentioned before, CPSIA has had a significant impact on our business. Every second is spent addressing our customers’ concerns, working with our suppliers to meet requirements. I personally have spent at least about 30 percent of my time this year (on CPSIA) in one form or another. As president of the company, I should be investing my energy (on other things).”

Mike, I feel your pain!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Educational Company Woes under the CPSIA

CPSIA – Proposition 65 Provides Funding Mechanism for CEH Crusaders

Has the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) gone into the business of finding violations of law for profit? You gotta wonder.

This past week, CEH capped off a six-week investigation of 250 children’s items at the request of or in partnership with the CA Attorney General’s office, finding seven mildly offending items. As detailed in my blogpost last Wednesday, this rogue’s gallery of offenders include a pair of shoes (soles), sandals (insoles), a poncho, a small patch of material on a bicycle accessory and the like. The CA AG issued cease-and-desist orders on his own, cutting the CPSC out of the picture, and a media feeding frenzy ensued. Presumably to the delight of the CEH troublemakers, Oregon followed up with its own action. [To Oregon's credit, they indicate they would inform the CPSC of their concerns, not take a direct recall action like the CA AG.] Perhaps other States plan to follow the CA lead and jump down the retailers’ throats for these trivial defects.

How did this come to pass? It turns out that the starting point was a tip by CEH on another lead case, this one involving Mattel. As you know, Mattel was responsible for some major lead-in-paint recalls in 2007/8. These recalls were a result of a violation of longstanding federal law, and the authority for the recall was found in the CPSA (before its amendment by the CPSIA). [In other words, the new law was not required to force Mattel to recall these items.] It turns out that California’s Proposition 65, its notorious consumer-right-to-know law, was also violated by those recalls. The insidious Prop. 65 (explicitly exempted from preemption under the CPSIA by the powerful California Congressional delegation including Senators Boxer and Feinstein and Reps. Pelosi and Waxman) requires that products exceeding (in this case) its lead standard be labeled to “inform” the consumer. Prop. 65 lead standards now match the federal standards. By violating the federal standards, Mattel also violated the Prop. 65 label requirements, thus giving California the chance to extend its palm for penalties and other concessions.

In the first of many settlements relating to its recalls, Mattel and other companies settled
a Prop. 65 lawsuit and paid a collective $1.56 million in penalties and fees. [The CA AG extracted similar penalties from Target, TRU and KMart for lead violations earlier this month.] It turns out that this $550,000 penalty case stemmed from a rat out by CEH: “This agreement settles a lawsuit filed by the State of California and the LA City Attorney in November 2007, after receiving notices of violation from the Center for Environmental Health, As you Sow, and the Environmental Law Foundation.” Part of the money extracted ($550,000) was applied to a fund “to test toys for lead and improve outreach about future recalls.”

So how did Mattel’s misery pay off for CEH? The CA AG’s press release tells all: “In 2008, Brown’s office reached a settlement with several major toy companies over excessive levels of lead in their products. The settlement allocated $548,000 in funding for consumer safety groups to monitor lead levels in consumer goods and to provide outreach about product recalls. The Center for Environmental Health discovered the current violations with a grant from the Public Health Trust, which administers the settlement fund.”

So, here’s the game – CEH finds violations of the law, and then puts in for grants to find more violations, all funded by the violators. CEH is a not-for-profit – it is not a business, does not make or sell products or services for a profit and its officers and employees have no source of funding other than contributions . . . until now. Proposition 65 is their new funding source. Shaking down corporations under the auspices of Prop. 65 to provide funds for new hires, salaries, raises, perhaps even bonuses. Thus, the unholy alliance of plaintiff lawyers and consumer groups is made even more cozy. Consumer protection as a plaintiff lawyer’s dream. Job well done, CEH!

CEH and its ilk want you to believe that they are simply out there to protect your interests, which is the reason presented to explain their “passionate” search for “scofflaws”. But does that explanation hold water when the consumer group is essentially working on a commission for pay? Can you really be sure these violations are actually dangerous when it is clear that CEH must find them to pay its rent or keep its officers on the job? And what about the interests of the local politicians in this dynamic? Jerry Brown wants to be California’s governor – what are his incentives in this case, being egged on by the pay-by-the-violation consumer group?

Does anyone see the possibility of conflicts of interest here? What is that odor I smell?

Aside from the OUTRAGE of CEH taking money for its escapades, the entire Proposition 65 gambit seems to be a parallel safety law allowing a local politician to upstage and trump federal regulation, all the while shaking down companies with duplicative penalties for the same offense. Mattel, no particular object of sympathy in my book, was hit with Prop. 65 penalties (collectively with others, $1.56 million), a “consumer fraud” settlement with 38 states for $12 million, a CPSC fine of $2.3 million and a class action settlement said to be worth more than $50 million. Since Proposition 65 is exempted from preemption by our wise Congress, this liability bonanza will continue to plague the toy industry for a long time to come (forever?).

What is the consequences of the long term, relentless, pointless (from a social good standpoint) assault on our industry under Proposition 65? A poisoned well. What do you think will happen to small business vendors to retailers who have been hounded and hunted under this law? The ultimate in skittishness. It is just not possible to satisfy their hunger for safety mania. As an example, a large national retailer has been demanding that our company test every product for lead-in-paint . . . regardless of whether it has any paint on it. That can only make sense in a world where the consequences of violations are too horrible to contemplate.

Is a violation of this law really worse than mass murder? I think not. This week’s CEH violations are innocent and have not and will not harm anyone. They are minor manufacturing defects and can be corrected easily and inexpensively. By making each such trivial violation into a capital case, the cost of doing business skyrockets, profit incentive crashes and many players exit. We have already seen one offering memorandum for a customer of ours who can’t take it anymore. Most of the exits are quieter and harder to detect. See my post about Whimsical Walney. If we allow regulators to run roughshod over our industry this way, there won’t be anything left to protect. That would be terrible for all Americans. Sometimes you don’t know what you have until you lose it.

This is your country. Think about the corruption of fee-driven consumer groups and marauding State AGs who don’t answer to the CPSC. What are you going to do about it???

Read more here:
CPSIA – Proposition 65 Provides Funding Mechanism for CEH Crusaders

CPSIA – RILA Requests Comments on its Global Standards

We received the following request from RILA about its new Global Standards. Here are some FAQs they supplied. RILA is asking for comments by December 1 which I think is too tight. We have asked them to extend the date into mid-January . . . it is the Xmas season.

These standards are yet another massive threat to the manufacturing community. It is essential that MANY companies contribute their ideas and comments to protect our ability to do business with the mass market merchants. Frankly, you ignore this standard at your peril. Please send RILA your comments.

Dear Supplier,

Earlier this year, the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) joined with the British Retail Consortium (BRC) to develop a retail-led, Global Standard for Consumer Product Manufacturing (GSCPM). RILA has been distributing drafts of the Standard through fellow trade associations, including possibly your own, since July 2009.

You have been identified by a RILA member as a key stakeholder in the development of this Standard and attached you’ll find the latest draft of the BRC/RILA Global Standard for Consumer Product Manufacturing.

As the BRC/RILA Standard drafting process comes to an end, we welcome your comments and value your feedback on the content. Please email all comments directly to Jim.Neill@rila.org by December 1, 2009.

Key components of the BRC/RILA Standard includes development of Sector Specific Guidelines, as well as a phased, orderly implementation. Please consider working with us in the development of these in the near future and let me know if you’re interested.

In addition to the BRC/RILA Standard, you will also find attached a Frequently Asked Questions document about the Standard and the program. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I look forward to working with you in the upcoming months.

Best Regards,

Jim Neill
Vice President, Product Safety
Retail Industry Leaders Association
1700 N. Moore Street, Suite 2250
Arlington, VA 22209
Direct: 703∙600∙2022
Mobile: 202∙412∙8960
Fax: 703∙841∙1184
mailto:Jim.Neill@retail-leaders.org

Read more here:
CPSIA – RILA Requests Comments on its Global Standards

« Previous Page — Next Page »