CPSIA – Fait Accompli

Tomorrow the stage is set for the ultimate triumph of the Waxmanis:  the predicted approval of the 100 ppm lead standard by 3-2 party line vote.  The three Democrats will express regret, saying that Congress forced them to do it, and calling on Congress to let them make this standard prospective only.  They will no doubt also assert that this is good for all of us, given that “there is no safe level of lead”, that old chestnut unsupported by any injury data. No doubt the 100 ppm lead limit will fix all of these imaginary problems.  The Republicans will note the pointlessness of it all, and remind us of the cost of the provision.  Jobs will be lost.  The Republicans will be right, but the Dems have a political agenda to implement, and you will be sacrificed.  Mr. Obama’s Executive Order will not give the Dems pause. After three years, I am numb to this behavior.  The Dem Commissioners are and have always been beyond reach, unimpressed by reason or data.  That comes from a strong conviction of the correctness of their position with no need to reconsider.  As Bob Adler’s testimony at the Oversight hearing on July 7th indicates, the Dems are ever ready to defend the CPSIA faith.  [Check out the testimony given in questioning by the estimable Jan Schakowsky.]  Data, schmata. For those of you who have expended energy, or committed resources, to providing information to the CPSC after three years on this provision (comment letters, testimony, etc.), please note that it was all a set-up.  The decision facing the Commission is whether the 100 ppm lead level is “technologically feasible”. The legislative definition of this term of art does NOT take into consideration cost, perhaps because every life is precious and of infinite value.  It does not matter what it costs to comply, only whether it is somehow possible.  CPSC Staff confirms that everything can be made without lead using this definition however absurd.  So the Dems have no reason to vote against the new standard.   No reason . . . .   Consider the views of the American Apparel and Footwear Association in a letter dated July 11, 2011 on this topic: “We strongly urge the Commission to declare that it is not technologically feasible to meet the 100ppm standard for the simple reasons that:  (a) it is impossible to meet a standard retroactively; (b) compliance cannot be assured because of continued issues with material variability, especially with metals; (c) compliance is complicated by the regulatory uncertainty generated by the technological unfeasibility issue as well as the ongoing delay in the so-called “15-month rule”; (d) the new standard will impose significant costs on manufacturers, costs which disproportionately affect smaller companies; and (e) inter-lab variability, especially at the lower limits, make consistent compliance impossible.” Details, details – the Dems DON’T CARE.  Tomorrow the Commission will enact an egregiously out-of-whack rule from a cost-benefit standpoint a mere two days after Obama ordered the CSPC by name to review all rules for being overly burdensome.  Yawn.  After three years of this, what else would you expect?

Read the original post:
CPSIA – Fait Accompli

CPSIA – The Cost of Government Regulation Examined

I recommend that you check out Wayne Crews’ article in Forbes dated July 6 entitled ” The Cost of Government Regulation “. This article predates the recent House Oversight hearing or the Obama Executive Order on Independent Agencies and Regulatory Reform. Mr. Crews cites regulatory costs in excess of $1 trillion for this excess ($1.4 trillion for the self-destructive overreaction to Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley alone). Costs of this magnitude makes cost-benefit analysis something of joke. He notes: “Agencies think within their squares and have conflicts of interest in assessing their own benefits. Regulators can ignore the opportunity costs and moral hazard they create. Even now they are in the process of distorting entire industry structures via limiting access to energy, antitrust regulatory abuse and “net neutrality” rules in telecommunications and government “stimulus” with regulatory strings attached.” Enough already!!!

Taken from:
CPSIA – The Cost of Government Regulation Examined

CPSIA – The Axis of Misinformation

CPSC Spokesman Scott Wolfson wants you to read an article: Scott_Wolfson: If #opengov #gov20 are important to u, pls read this LATimes column: http://t.co/MrrgGwO #SaferProducts.gov #cpsc  [From Scott Wolfson's Twitter feed] Wolfson refers you to a hatchet job by David Lazarus of the LA Times  on the CPSIA Product Database. I have taken issue with the blather emitted from Lazarus’ PC in the past.  In his latest example of irresponsible journalism, endorsed by the CPSC, Lazarus displays his studied ignorance of the issues relating to the database. His lack of research certainly didn’t prevent him from making declarative statements. Wolfson wanted to be sure you didn’t miss it. Lazarus ponders what the issues could possibly be with the controversial database:  ” You’ve got to wonder why businesses are fighting so hard to keep this resource away from consumers. Is it because their fears are justified that we’ll misuse this tool (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding)? Or is it because the last thing they want is a consuming public armed with the latest and most thorough information on the safety of their goods? And if it’s the latter, you might now ask, what are they trying to hide? ” I cannot think of any objections to the database other than self-interest, can you?  It’s all a conspiracy, as anyone on the Left can tell you.  Businesses have so much to hide!  And did you know that evil billionaires are against the database?  Lazarus sorts it all out:  “Koch Industries — run by billionaires Charles and David Koch, who are active in conservative causes — also reported spending more than $200,000 lobbying against creation of the database.”  Lazarus asserts that it is significant that Members of Congress aligned against the database also received campaign contributions from businesses.  [Can you find a single member of Congress who has NOT taken contributions from businesses or business people?  Just curious.]  Lazarus notes that both Reps. Emerson and Pompeo received contributions from business people who are ALSO against the database.  It’s all making sense now . . . . Perhaps it was an oversight, but Lazarus fails to mention that the folks on the Left who so vigorously defend the database as implemented have been richly financed by TRIAL LAWYERS.  Rep. Henry Waxman raised more than $165,000 in 2010 from lawyers (11% of his total raise).  In fact, his top PAC contributor was the American Association for Justice , a group of plaintiff’s attorneys actively opposing tort reform.  He also received individual contributions from AAJ lobbyists .  Rep. Jan Schakowsky raised a mere $224,000 from lawyers in 2010 (about 15% of her raise).  Ditto for AAJ support.  Poke around on OpenSecrets.org to check out your other favorites in Congress.  It goes without saying that the support Waxman, Schakowsky and their ilk lavish on the database has NOTHING to do with campaign contributions by trial lawyers.   It all comes from the heart, cloaked in white.  Any idea who pays the bill for all the litigation initiated by the AAJ and its members?  Hint:  it’s not Waxmn or Schakowsky. No Lazarus article would be complete without the quotes of Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America.  The strangely influential Weintraub is the Left’s favorite mouthpiece on the CPSIA.  Here she tries a new angle to preserve the database, the “sunk cost” argument:  “The thing that’s so insidious is that the database is already up and running,  This would basically waste all the money and resources that have gone into creating the database.”  Insidious! That thrifty Rachel, she literally weeps over government waste.  Of course, the database is not controversial simply because it exists; the principal reason the issue lingers on is that Lefties like Weintraub and Bob Adler insisted on unfair administrative procedures that create unreasonable risks for manufacturers unrelated to actual product hazards, like brand slander, misidentified products, lack of accountability by complaint filers, manipulation of civil disputes and unbalanced data creating misleading commercial impressions. These problems are well-documented but have apparently escaped Lazarus’ beady-eyed (in)attention. The Axis of Misinformation is at work here.  You have the ignorant journalist (perhaps intentionally so or at a minimum, biased against manufacturers and disinterested in their POV), the shrill consumer “advocate” and the self-serving agency spokesman whose job is to manipulate how we feel about the CPSC (irrespective of reality or the “truth”).  CPSC as PR agency is offensive to me.  That’s not its function and besides, I think it’s dangerous to me as a consumer.  As a practitioner noted this week in private correspondence:  ” CPSC stacks the deck by creating alarming recall notices that do not really put hazards in perspective for readers, nor does the agency give consumers enough information to determine whether the amounts that they wind up indirectly paying for the costs of recalls are justified, especially when those costs are spread out to affect products that have not been recalled and present no risk. Hazards and risks are generally overstated, and you will never see any mention of costs to the public even though, as we all know, there is, after all, no free lunch .” It is worth noting that I hear complaints from the CPSC through various channels when they object to the portrayals in this space.  It’s so unfair that we have freedom of speech in this country.  No doubt that makes the job of regulating all of us idiots so much more difficult.  Still, if I get to exercise my freedom of speech, so does Wolfson.  Go ahead and read Lazarus.  It is informative in a way.  It will take you less than 30 seconds to recognize the shoddy journalism and the slanted, biased presentation of a one-sided story.  Consider the source of this lead – Scott Wolfson and the CPSC.  As I said, it’s informative.

View post:
CPSIA – The Axis of Misinformation

CPSIA – American Job Creators (Remember When We Did That?)

The House Majority Leader wants to know how the CPSC and the CPSIA are affecting your business.  They have a website set up for you to download everything you know about the misconceived CPSIA and resulting three year nightmare.  The first agency listed on the web page is the CPSC. Have some fun with this!  Feel free to post your insights here, too.

Read the original post:
CPSIA – American Job Creators (Remember When We Did That?)

CPSIA – Functional Purpose Exception Is All About Dollars Now

The purported Functional Purpose Exception in the last draft of ECADA is unavailable to all but the largest and most well-funded of corporate supplicants.  Is it even THAT good? Let’s start with the premise that the holding by the CPSC Staff that it is “technologically feasible” to make everything without lead at 100 ppm concentrations.  In other words, in CPSIA-speak, it is ”possible” to make EVERYTHING without lead.  As noted previously many times, the term “technological feasibility” does not incorporate any concept of money or economics.  It simply signifies that it is possible in the real world to do it, damn the cost. Thus, the functional purpose exception is intended for products, components or materials that are either not possible to make without lead at compliant levels (not “technologically feasible”) or if possible, are unreasonably expensive or disruptive to make (“not practicable”).  In other words, the functional purpose test boils down to this:  ”not possible to make” or “possible to make but too expensive”.  As previously noted, this is further limited to items REQUIRING the inclusion of lead.  These items are quite limited, generally they are metals only.  You’ll never see the law reflect this metals limitation honestly because the Dems want to fool you into thinking this provision is something much more than it is. They don’t want you to know it’s not really for you. The retort to my argument yesterday is that this exception will be a boon for everyone because you can use evidence from prior hearings (paid for by preceding supplicants) to prove your case.  But since EVERYTHING can be made without lead according to CPSC Staff, the evidence of preceding supplicants is much less likely to be helpful or even available to you.  Why?  Because evidence dealing with technological feasibility is a settled question now.  There is no need for further evidence so all those expensive consultant reports are moot.  The only evidence of prior supplicants that would be useful must  reflect on the question of “practicability”.  How likely is it that you can use other people’s data on practicability? The pending draft reads as follows:  “In demonstrating that it meets the requirements of subparagraph (A), a party seeking an exception under such subparagraph may rely on any nonproprietary information submitted by any other party seeking such an exception and such information shall be considered part of the record presented by the party that relies on that information.”  [Emphasis added]  In other words, you can only rely on non-proprietary evidence of others reflecting on practicability.  Of this, there will be none. The issue of “practicability” is essentially one of having to take steps that are unreasonably burdensome in economic terms.  Each competitor in a marketplace has a different cost structure and sets different profit margins. This is very confidential and highly proprietary information.  Sources are confidential, manufacturing processes and innovations are usually trade secrets. All these secrets provide competitive advantage and will not be disclosed publicly. Furthermore, the disclosure of such information could devastate the market for the product, once profit margins or technical manufacturing data are disclosed to customers and resellers.  No one will disclose this information except under seal.  Many people won’t even take that step, distrusting the sanctity of their most precious information assets once it is out of their control.  So there won’t be any non-proprietary information to share or use.  Besides, each case will be different.  In reality, the case for Kawasaki to use lead in its ATV engine blocks will be different from the case of Arctic Cat ATVs because their manufacturing processes, cost levels, manufacturing location(s), market position and so on are different.  Deciding practicability for one manufacturer sheds no light on another manufacturer because the entire question is one of economics.  Let’s not forget, practicability will be determined not by whether ANY additional costs are imposed, but instead by whether the new costs are unreasonable AND unbearable.  That will vary in case by case, market by market. No doubt extraneous subjective factors like the Dems’ paranoia about lead will make for inconsistent judgments of what constitutes an unreasonable burden.  After all, there’s no safe level of lead!  Nothing will extend from one case to another.  Nothing at all. It is not surprising that this confusion lingers.  The original concept of the functional purpose exception (a lame idea from the get-go) was focused on the question of technological feasibility.  The ability to use other people’s submitted consultant reports had some value in that case.  But since that question is now resolved, so the value of sharing the reports is gone.  All that’s left is the taste in everyone’s mouth. Where does this leave us?  With no exceptions to the CPSIA, none, zippo, nada, nuthin’.   You can thank the ever-intransigent Dems for this terrible situation.  The functional purpose exception should be DROPPED and replaced with something actually useful to real businesses, before we all expire.  The House Energy and Commerce Committee needs to ask:  Who are we trying to benefit?  What problem are we trying to solve? How will the new provision solve that problem? Who will be the beneficiaries of that solution?  [In the real world] Do we like the order in which relief is likely to be doled out?  Is it okay to design a provision such that only big companies can get relief in practical effect, or one in which big companies must be granted relief first ? How much will the process cost?  How risky is the investment in applying for relief?  Is the application for relief essentially automatic, or will it be a case-by-case trial in front of the Commission? How burdensome will the application process be?  Is the exemption intended to benefit companies with small high-value product lines of 5-15 products (e.g., ATV manufacturers), or companies with broad product lines (e.g., science educational suppliers can carry many thousands of items)? Let’s get real about the relief we are purportedly offering.  Something good and useful can be crafted but not if it must followed the form of the useless functional purpose exception.  Please, Congress, don’t play games – write a provision that speaks clearly and honestly about who will benefit and how.  After three years of this, we deserve at least something clear and understandable.

See original article:
CPSIA – Functional Purpose Exception Is All About Dollars Now

CPSIA – Hypocrisy on Display

CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum was home in South Carolina last week and made an appearance to commemorate a new State ATV safety law known as ” Chandler’s Law “.  This law is supported, even encouraged, by the ATV industry.  Notes Paul Vitrano of the SVIA, “Chandler’s Law is a major step in the right direction. It’s something to be celebrated and we extend sincere thanks to everyone involved in its enactment. But there’s much more work to be done in South Carolina and all over America. ATVs are safe when used properly, but they are not toys. No responsible parent would hand the keys to the family car over to their child and send them on their way.” [Emphasis added] ATVs are not toys.  But ATVs are regulated by the CPSIA as though they are toys.  Notably, as a consequence of the CPSIA, access to youth-model ATVs has been all but eliminated .  Incredibly, there is still NOT ONE test lab certified by the CPSC to test ATVs for compliance either.  Testimony to this effect was given at the February 16th CPSC hearing at which I appeared.  Jay Howell of the CPSC acknowledged that the expense of testing ATVs cannot apparently be recovered by labs because there are so few youth model ATVs left on the market.  No lab wants to invest for testing at a loss.  The market speaks?  The absence of youth model ATVs from the market also means that they are not being rented out.  Rental and sales are the same thing under the CPSIA.  They’re gone. Interestingly, Chandler’s Law prohibits children under 16 from riding adult-sized ATVs.   If you can connect even two dots, you will realize that this is a tacit ban on children riding ATVs.  Period.  This is the secret agenda of the consumer group zealots like the former AAP majordomo Cindy Pelligrini as she admitted at a meeting of stakeholders with the House Energy and Commerce Committee staff on January 6, 2011.   So in other words, the consumer groups have a political agenda that they cannot accomplish via direct legislation – taking away ATVs from your kids, even using youth model ATVs developed at the request of the CPSC.  ATV riding is too popular regionally for a ban to ever pass Congress - so the consumer groups obtained their objective under the cover of darkness with the CPSIA and sympathetic Dem plants on the CPSC Commission.  And here’s the hypocrisy of Ms. Tenenbaum on public display.   Appearing to herald the restrictions on youth access to adult-sized ATVs, Ms. Tenenbaum does not mention that she is ALSO responsible for the removal of youth-model ATVs from the market and that Chandler’s Law essentially implements a ban on ATV use by children under 16 years of age in South Carolina.  Had she admitted it, the publicity storm would have been bad for South Carolina legislators and Dems all over the country.  She’ll never breathe a word. Not unlike the rest of the CPSIA mess, the reality is kept beneath a cloak, out of sight.  You will only notice, if you ever do, when you go to the store and try to buy something wonderful that you have used safely in the past . . . and it’s gone.  Where did it go?  The self-appointed ” fun suckers ” have been there first.  Youth model ATVs – they’re against them.  Trampolines, backyard pools, fireworks, rhinestones, brass instruments  - all too “dangerous” for you to be allowed to use.  They know what’s best, and you should be thankful. It’s our country but they’re running it.  When are you going to do something about it?  After three years, you don’t have much time left to figure it out.

See the article here:
CPSIA – Hypocrisy on Display

CPSIA – Oversight Hearing Set for July 6th

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding an oversight hearing on July 6th entitled ” The Views of the Independent Agencies on Regulatory Reform ” featuring CPSC Commissioners Bob Adler and Anne Northup.  Other agencies will also be questioned (FCC, FERC and FTC).  Break out the popcorn!

Read More:
CPSIA – Oversight Hearing Set for July 6th

CPSIA – I Think I Found Someone Who Lost a Few IQ Points . . . .

Morons on parade . . . . Never failing to disappoint, the Tribune (via its South Florida Sun-Sentinel) today published the latest left wing tripe about the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA).  In an article entitled ” Pandering politicians threaten to make hay of product safety “, Nicole Brochu unquestioningly falls in line with Henry Waxman and Rachel Weintraub on ECADA and trashes safety legislation she clearly does not understand. I am pretty sure Ms. Brochu is not a regular reader of this blog.  She has successfully remained ignorant of many indisputable facts about safety in children’s products, not to mention the detailed nature of the problems caused by CPSIA.  That certainly makes it easier to react emotionally to the “threat” posed by ANY effort to change the ill-conceived CPSIA.  And that she does . . . . Ms. Brochu starts by confirming her bias against business and ruling out any consideration of opposing viewpoints (possibly involving FACTS):   ” I don’t know about you, but when it comes to keeping the nation’s supply of kids’ toys and other consumer products safe, I’m going with the advice of doctors, scientists and watchdogs. I’m not sure we can rely on toymakers and motorcycle distributors to have the public’s collective back on this one . . . . [The] only thing [ECADA] proposes to enhance is special interests’ bottom lines — not the CPSC’s authority, or its protections of the consumers in its care.” Ah, special interests again!  She must have been talking to the estimable Jan Schakowsky.  As everyone knows, I am a “very cynical . . . special interest”.  You should see my lapel pin! Ms. Brochu regurgitates the platitudes and slogans of the shrill groups opposing any change to the law: ECADA and CPSIA are toy bills. CPSIA was passed by an overwhelming majority of both Houses of Congress and was signed by “pro-business Republican President George W. Bush”. As a result of the CPSIA, there has been a “noticeable improvement in the public’s wounded confidence” (presumably in children’s products and the federal government). “[A] bunch of pandering politicians [are trying] to muck it all up for us.  Since Republicans took over majority control of the U.S. House last year (and even before), they have set their sights on diminishing the safety act’s laudatory provisions in the name of lifting the burden off small-business owners.”  [ Ed. Note :  This is a variant of the argument that only Democrats and consumer groups care about kids, certainly not businesses or Republicans.] ECADA is “a hyperventilating overreach that would put the country’s health and safety at risk.  And that’s just what an impressive contingent of folks — including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Kids In Danger, Public Citizen, Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the CPSC’s chairman and two of its commissioners — say this measure would do.”  ECADA “[waters] down the safety act’s firm hold on lead content in children’s products . . . .” The book industry and motorcycle  industry are “special interests” seeking a pass for their products. No matter the merits of their claims, the law’s protections cannot be weakened in any way.  [ Ed. Note :  This is the "zero sum" argument again - if manufacturers are made better off by ECADA, it follows "logically" that children MUST BE worse off.] In each case, I have already replied to these misstatements and mischaracterizations in this space.  Since I seem to repeat myself endlessly, I am going to spare you one more trip around the same block today.  You can find the answers in my recent postings on ECADA. The author finishes up with one of the biggest misconceptions promoted by the opponents of ECADA: ” The bill would do away with the requirement that manufacturers test their products before bringing them to market, putting the onus instead on the tax-funded CPSC to conduct extensive, costly analyses to determine if testing is necessary. Taxpaying consumers shouldn’t shoulder the burden, or the cost, of making sure the products they buy are safe. In any reasonable scenario, that responsibility should fall on the businesses — big or small — making money selling their wares to the American public.” This remark reflects a gross misunderstanding of how businesses operate and how the proposed change in law affects businesses regulated under the CPSIA.  ECADA does not eliminate the need to test children’s products for compliance with the strictures of the CPSIA.  The lead standards are still on the books, the rabid regulators are still breathing down our necks and THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW IF YOU COMPLY WITHOUT PERFORMING PRODUCT TESTS.  What ECADA accomplishes, Ms. Brochu, is to stop the government from telling us how to run our businesses.  We know better how to comply with these rules than they do, and can save vast sums of money wasted on government-mandated testing overkill.  We will STILL HAVE TO TEST. There is no way around it.  And if we screw up, we pay.  This is not really a change, btw.  We have always been subject to American tort law and have always been on the hook for our failures. I wonder if the knuckleheads who believe that ECADA eviscerates the CPSIA understand that the government has no way to force businesses to test.  Mandated testing does not mean that every children’s product will be tested, any more than posted speed limits mean that you will never get a speeding ticket.  To survey compliance, the CPSC will always have to test products – and cops will always need radar guns.  Scurrilous businesses that don’t want to spend the money to comply will lie – and good businesses will spend themselves into bankruptcy paying for endlessly repetitive tests.  The mandated testing regime has little to do with these behaviors because this is the realm of compliance .  Rules do not eliminate bad behavior as common experience instructs.   The drafters of ECADA get this point, and have incorporated the modest concession that the standards are more important to safety than attempting to manage thousands of businesses.  Ms. Brochu would know this if she read my blog. I want to draw your attention AGAIN to the important point that Ms. Brochu’s safety neurotics have yet to answer my query – WHERE ARE THE VICTIMS OF LEAD-IN-SUBSTRATE?  If we are saving children from a dreaded threat NOW, presumably children were suffering grave consequences in the past.  Yet when asked to name these victims and provide case histories and other identifying and validating data, the advocates cannot name even ONE victim – from any country, at any time, using any children’s product by any manufacturer under any living conditions.  Zero known victims – but we must bear billions in costs to comply with a neurotics’ legislative and regulatory wet dream.  Notably, in May 2010 I published my own analysis of 11 years of CPSC recalls from 1999-2010 and found only three alleged injuries (all from lead-in-paint) and one death (from swallowing a lead bangle from a bracelet).  That’s it – and there are no known victims of lead-in-substrate in the CPSC’s publicly-available recall records in that time period to the best of my knowledge.  Or at any other time in the history of the world .  The absence of lead-in-substrate injuries is stark in comparison to prosaic risks we bear EVERY DAY.  Stair falls have killed almost as many people in Japan as fires despite the fact that many structures in Japan are made of wood (1976).  In Canada, injuries and fatalities on stairs are at least ten times greater than those from natural disasters (1985).  In the UK, it has been estimated that more than 100,000 stair injuries occur annually (1999).  Yet the federal government wants us to spend literally BILLIONS OF DOLLARS annually to protect against a health threat not associated with a SINGLE documented injury.  We are being governed by idiots. Maybe someday we can expect the media to think before it speaks.  Maybe someday the standards for journalism will include knowing what you’re talking about, investigating and challenging preconceived notions and a healthy skepticism for pat answers.  Until then, we have the Tribune and Ms. Brochu. VOTE FOR ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!

See more here:
CPSIA – I Think I Found Someone Who Lost a Few IQ Points . . . .

CPSIA – Consumers Union is Hazardous to Your Health

Lies, innuendos, misstatements, twists – which is it this time? Today Ami Gadhia, one of the Consumers Union CPSIA hacks (a.k.a. “Policy Counsel”) weighed in with her usual bunk about the lurking “dangers” in children’s products.  In particular, today’s tripe is a protest against modifying the CPSIA.  Her writings and utterances are invariably infuriating for their lack of perspective, tall tales and general fear mongering.  In her article ” Turning Back the Clock on Child Safety Protections “, Ms. Gadhia continues her fine tradition of twisting and obfuscating the facts.  Considering her background in the subject matter and her law degree, one must assume ill-intent.  This can’t be accidental. Let me debunk her junk one-by-one: a.  “Turning Back the Clock on Child Safety Protections”:  The Op-Ed’s title is absurd in light of the actual bill’s wording.  The CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) is a mild and surgical bill intended to offer minimal but effective relief from over-regulation while preserving the structure of the CPSIA.  Killing the CPSIA is politically impossible, it appears, so this is the best that can be offered at this time.  Ms. Gadhia must be asserting that ANY change in the CPSIA is a setback.  This argument is always left unproven – but no one ever holds her accountable so why not tell the tall tale?  The consumer groups rely on the appeal of the “zero sum” argument which also goes unchallenged.  It goes like this:  ANY change in the CPSIA which might benefit a business is THEREFORE a setback for children’s safety.  If the Cubs lose 15-5, they are somehow better off if they instead lose 13-5.  Right. . . . b.  Ms. Gadhia, like her fellow manipulators in the consumer “advocacy” field, relies on an emotional appeal to kick off her crock – the story of a child who swallowed magnets, leading to gory injury.  A few notes on this line of reasoning: The CPSIA is NOT a toy law.  Despite Ms. Gadhia’s relentlessly repetitive references to toy safety, the law applies equally to ALL children’s products, from shoes and t-shirts to pens to rhinestones to ATVs and bikes to books to educational products to carpet to what-have-you.  By focusing on toy gore, Ms. Gadhia lulls her reader into overlooking the awesome overreach of this bill.  We don’t want kids injured by magnets . . . ergo , we should ban all hazards in all things.  Huh? The magnet hazard she refers to had never been seen by the agency previously.  It was a classic latent hazard, unregulated specifically because it was unrecognized.  You can see Gib Mullan, the current General Counsel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and former General Counsel and Director of Compliance at the CPSC say ON VIDEOTAPE (at the CPSC Tracking Labels hearing ) that the agency first thought the problem was a small parts issue, not a strong magnets issue.  No law can effectively regulate UNKNOWN hazards.  Claiming that the CPSIA “solves” this safety issue is pure baloney. The magnet hazard was addressed promptly and effectively by the agency without the need for changes implemented by the CPSIA. The agency had this power under its 1972 enabling legislation and following laws. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. c.  Ms. Gadhia intones ominously about banned phthalates and their links to “a variety of health risks”.  As has been well-documented here, that provision was placed in the law at the last minute by Diane Feinstein, true to her San Francisco roots.  This is the same place that worked for years to ban circumcision.  Yes, they are really scientific in that community.  For a discussion of phthalates, please watch the 60 Minutes segment in which I appeared. d.  Ms. Gadhia trots out yet another misleading but longstanding justification for not changing the CPSIA – namely that it passed by an overwhelming majority of Congress.  I fail to grasp the intellectual power of this “infallibility of Congress” argument, and further note that dozens of members of Congress have been trying to change the law ever since.  There has been more than a dozen bills floated to amend this “perfect” law since August 2008.  In addition, the timing of passage of this law (three months ahead of the 2008 Presidential poll electing Mr. Obama) made it very dangerous politically to vote against this terrible law if you wanted to keep your job in Congress.  Even Mr. Bush had to sign it for political reasons.  The political and media frenzy in 2008 made rationality impossible, and minds were made up.  Have you ever made a bad call when you were furious?  ‘Nuf said . . . by everyone except the dangerous Ms. Gadhia. e.  The Consumers Union storyteller informs us that ECADA “would poke some serious holes in the product safety net”.  What a dream if Ms. Gadhia were actually right that this amendment would actually dent the CPSIA that I hate.  It doesn’t, regrettably.  To “prove” her points, she lists four lies : “The bill undermines safety testing for children’s products”.   The bill eliminates MANDATORY testing as required by the CPSIA.  It does not ban testing, nor does it discourage or remove the incentive to test.  Excessive testing is one of the original problems cited in the bill, and has cost our company well in excess of $1 million since the passage of the bill – all without making even one product in our product range safer, even a little bit.  This term is the brainchild of the consumer groups (Rachel Weintraub?), reasoning that if the government didn’t require mandatory testing, no testing would be done.  This misconception overlooks the enforcement of the new standards.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to assess whether you comply with the standard without testing.  Enforcement of the standard, as is anticipated, means that everyone WILL test.  What is being eliminated is the role of Mother Government “helping” us by telling us how to run our businesses.  If the standard is enforced, people will HAVE TO test.  If they don’t enforce the standard, they won’t enforce mandatory testing either. What’s the big deal here?  Just the opportunity for Ms. Gadhia to mindlessly bang her drum. “The bill undermines lead protections”.    Ms. Gadhia informs us that consumer confidence would “erode” if the current one-size-fits-all standard is replaced with “a variety of standards that will be different depending on when the product was manufactured, the age of the child for whom the product is designed, whether it contains small parts, and other factors.”  OMG – standards that are reasonably tailored to the individual hazard and individual product!  NO – please tell me we still live in a world where books, t-shirts, diamonds and rubies, ATVs, bicycles, appliances, pens, carpets, DVDs and toys are ALL subject to exactly the same rules. What is the world coming to???  I presume Ms. Gadhia thinks we are idiots, or else this is all she has, which ain’t much.  Anyone surprised? “The bill undermines the effectiveness of the new crib safety standard”.   I have previously addressed this issue – the three Dem Commissioners made this same baseless accusation a few days ago.  See my reply in this space. “The bill undermines the new public database for people to report and read about product safety problems”.   Ms. Gadhia warns “the provisions in this legislation would place onerous burdens on the person making the complaint, thereby discouraging parties with valuable safety information from reporting.”  Whoa – you mean we won’t get to see stuff like this , this  and this again??? Ms. Gadhia needs to get one last jab in:  “The Leisy family’s experience shouldn’t happen to another child.”  Okay, I don’t want to see any child injured ever again for any reason . . . but does Ms. Gadhia even make a coherent argument here?  Does one thing have ANYTHING to do with another? It’s time to turn back the clock on irrationality and lowest common denominator government.  Who should set the tone for us – the Anthony Weiners of the world (did you hear that his wife is pregnant?) or people that are interested in children’s safety AND the viability of American businesses that provide jobs to your neighbors and valued products to your kids?  I think it’s time that our representatives in Congress, especially those in Congress calling themselves Democrats, to stand up for WHAT’S RIGHT rather than what’s easy or what’s safe (for their job security).  We pay them to lead, not to cower.  PASS ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!

View post:
CPSIA – Consumers Union is Hazardous to Your Health

CPSIA – Status of CPSIA Amendment (ECADA)

Having delayed the mark-up of the CPSIA Amendment bill (ECADA), the House is out of session for the next week.  The timing for resumption of the consideration of this bill has not been released.  I think it is incumbent on us to make a fuss over this delay and to press our Congressional representatives to act to pass this law.  Other industry groups are pushing for the meager and surgical relief offered by this law – but the Dems continue to resist.  The Dems moan and groan as though ECADA guts the CPSIA, perhaps banking on a docile media to not challenge their characterization of a very balanced and frankly, rather undramatic bill.  In fact, I was just interviewed by a reporter whose opening question was why the controversy over a bill that changes so little about the CPSIA.  Good question. I have an explanation to offer you  – it’s just politics, pure and simple, 100% politics.  As previously noted, the Republicans were sensitive to the excesses of the law before it was passed.  Given that the CPSIA was passed in August 2008, as America headed to the polls en masse to overwhelmingly elect Mr. Obama as our President, all members of Congress (other than Rand Paul and three others) saw the wisdom of supporting this bill.  The political cost of opposition to the CPSIA was unbearable – as my own representative told me face-to-face in July 2008, even though the CPSIA was over-the-top, he had to vote for it, otherwise he would face election commercials accusing him of defending corporations over children’s safety.  He would not sacrifice his job over this vote.  He assured me that Congress usually goes too far in its bills, but would go back in 12-to-18 months to fix it.  Not in this case, apparently. So the Republicans, like the Democrats, preferred the safe route politically in the summer of 2008, but by all appearances, wanted to go back and fix the bill as predicted by my district’s representative.  To their credit, the Republicans have used the majority  power in the House restored in the 2010 midterm elections to reach out to both sides on this issue, as well as to the Dems, to find appropriate middle ground on this contentious issue.  [I have discussed these efforts in this space over the course of 2011.]  The new General Counsel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Gib Mullan, is the ex-General Counsel and ex-Director of Compliance and Field Operations at the CPSC, so let’s posit that he understands the law pretty well from all angles. Even with this new horsepower (intellectual and political), the Dems haven’t responded to the Republicans’ entreaties and resolutely won’t yield on any points.  They continue to fight ECADA tooth and nail. Why? It’s politics, just politics.  Drop any notion that the Dems care about you . . . or your employees . . . or your suppliers . . . or your dealers . . . . or the consumers, teachers, families or schools that want, need and use your products every day.   Jobs, schmobs.  The well-documented and negative consequences of the CPSIA on our markets and economy (not to mention the paltry or nonexistent acheivements of the law) are just not on the Dems’ radar. They only care about getting reelected – their concern is simply themselves.  As in 2008, the ECADA issue is tailor-made for political gains.  As far as I can tell, that’s too tempting a morsel to pass up, damn the consequences on the “little people”.  The Dems argue to the populace that anything that makes the world better for your business necessarily makes life worse for kids.  Zero sum.  It’s a stupid, nonsensical argument, but if you give it no thought, it might SOUND good.  The Dems know their position makes them look good to a dozing electorate and a gullible media, and makes the Republicans push a lot of chips into the center of the table to do the right thing for our country. The Dems are also catering to their power base, the consumerists.  The consumer groups have their own axes to grind. For one thing, if they give an inch here, some people might accuse them of being hypocrites.  After all, they have repeated the Big Lie (“There is no safe level of lead”) for so long that it would come as a shock and disappointment to their true believers if they conceded the (intentional) error of their bumper sticker slogan.  In addition, their budgets are paid for by trial lawyers.  If they give in, there will less money available for tort lawyers to suck out of the system. That won’t work, will it? So the Dems are opposing restoring sanity to the safety laws for entirely self-interested political reasons.  Not ONE Democrat has EVER broken with the Waxman line. They have stuck together like glue.  Hats off to them for being well-organized.  But the Dems should be ashamed of themselves as public citizens – by putting their own PERSONAL interests ahead of the country and its economic engine, they are taking the low road.  Throwing our company, our jobs, our products, the families and schools that need our products, throwing everyone under the bus all to save their own jobs – that’s contemptible.  This is your government at work. Please reach out to your Congressmen to express your outrage.  Send emails and faxes, and ask your friends, relatives and associates to do it, too. Let’s clog the inboxes with complaints.  It’s time to stand up for what’s right!

Read More:
CPSIA – Status of CPSIA Amendment (ECADA)

« Previous Page — Next Page »