CPSIA – ICPHSO Update -Remarks of Chairman Inez Tenenbaum

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

Critical points from the speech:

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

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

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

Here’s the best part:

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

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

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

Will the Dems ever learn?

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

CPSIA – ICPHSO Update -Remarks of Chairman Inez Tenenbaum

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

Critical points from the speech:

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

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

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

Here’s the best part:

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

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

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

Will the Dems ever learn?

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

CPSIA – Learning Resources Testifies About Internet Privacy

My associate Michelle Bougie was invited to testify at the November 19 hearing held by a joint session of subcommittees of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the subject of Internet privacy. In a re-run of last year’s feeding frenzy on toy safety, consumer groups are promoting paranoia about the collection and use of consumer data on the Internet. As a result of the building pressure to regulate the use of data both online and offline, the interests of small businesses are again threatened. Michelle gave insightful testimony on the current direct marketing practices online and offline and showed how legislation has the real potential to not only stunt the growth of the Internet (a huge job creator) but also to give a federally-sanctioned monopoly to large businesses over the availability and use of consumer data.

It is worth noting that Michelle’s testimony provides evidence that considerable infrastructure exists now – widely-adopted voluntary standards designed to protect consumer privacy and to make visible the practices of direct marketers. Michelle argues that the empowerment of consumers online makes these good practices a market necessity.

In fact, consumer data is rarely if ever sold (to my knowledge, we have never purchased it). Consumer data is RENTED for one-time uses typically and is not disclosed to the company renting the data. For instance, if we mail a catalog, we define the kind of names we want to rent, but never SEE them – they go directly to the mailing house and do not become our property. This makes perfect sense because the compiled lists are the intellectual property of the company that rents them out – and if they SOLD the names once, they could never sell them again. They would be out of business after one sale. Thus, we never get to see the names we rent. In fact, it is highly likely that we have rented many of the same names over and over for different mailings or email blasts. Privacy cannot be violated by uses that do not involve disclosure!

Michelle’s statement is found below (sorry, the audio is a bit tinny). Media coverage of the hearing highlighted Michelle’s testimony.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Learning Resources Testifies About Internet Privacy

CPSIA – Tenenbaum Challenge Update!

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

Excerpt from:
CPSIA – Tenenbaum Challenge Update!

« Previous Page