CPSIA – Rachel Weintraub’s Distortions Justify Dem Refusal to Amend the CPSIA

Democrat tool Rachel Weintraub is never at a loss for words on the topic of CPSIA and true to form, she has today published more misstatements, distortions and innuendo to bolster Dem efforts to block amendment of the CPSIA.  In the space below, I rebut Ms. Weintraub’s “view of the world”.  It is worth noting that a much more erudite explanation of the pending CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) was published side-by-side with Weintraub’s smear campaign, namely ” Fix bill would make products safer, not less so ” by Eric Stone.  For those who don’t know Eric, his credentials include more than 33 years at the CPSC, including as Legal Director in the Office of Compliance and as Acting Director of the Recalls and Compliance Division.  He faced the real questions of safety at the agency and made the judgments subject to the scrutiny of the public, Congress and the legal system.  As Eric Stone notes, ” In crafting its new safety bill, Congress proved that moral outrage and good intentions do not necessarily result in good law .”   Amen. My responses to Ms. Weintraub are in blue and red . Don’t set safety clock backwards for kids products By Rachel Weintraub Florida Sun-Sentinel July 24, 2011 The House Energy and Commerce Committee will soon vote on HR 1939 , the “Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011,” or ECADA, a bill that guts the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, a vital law that keeps unsafe toys and other dangerous products off the shelves. RW – It is a typical ploy of the Lefties opposing amendment of the CPSIA to frame everything in terms of toys.  Toys are but one category affected by this awful law, but by using it as the CPSIA poster child, Weintraub puts you where she wants you – afraid of ECADA’s potential effects on innocents by “evil toymakers”.  Aside from the fact that “evil toymakers” are no more or less prevalent in our society than any other category of “evil” something-or-anothers, Weintraub’s characterization greatly distorts what CPSIA really is.  CPSIA applies to ANYTHING that is intended to be sold to children.  The list is well-known but, as a reminder, it includes t-shirts and shoes, carpets, pens, ATVs, bikes, books, science kits, DVDs and CDs, furniture, brass musical instruments, rhinestones and so on.   Focusing on toys is just to get you going. Congress passed CPSIA by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote in 2008, and President Bush signed the bill into law that year. After a year of careful deliberations, CPSIA’s passage followed a record number of recalls of children’s products that injured and killed children. The measure gave new life to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, a weakened federal oversight agency that had failed in its meager efforts to protect the public’s safety. The law represents a giant step forward in protecting America’s children. RW – Another defensive ploy of the CPSIA defenders is the “infallibility of Congress” argument, namely that everyone voted for it so why is anyone against it now.  This argument only makes sense if you don’t think about it too much.  For one thing, the CPSIA was passed in anger.  Have you ever said or done anything in anger that you later regretted?  That point aside, it is important to consider that this law was devised by a Dem-controlled Congress dominated by the strong-willed Left Winger Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.  Pelosi takes no prisoners and tolerates no dissent among her Dem followers.  The law was dictated by Dems to the Republicans, as insiders acknowledge, and was passed just ahead of the Obama wave in the Presidential election cycle. The votes of Republicans for such an extreme law cannot properly be deemed “voluntary” in any conventional sense. Everyone knew this law was a great chess move by the Dems, forcing Republicans to go along, and even President Bush got into the act by agreeing to sign to protect his party.  Weintraub’s distorted rewrite of history is a good illustration of the rule that history is written by the victors.  Consider the source . . . . CPSIA currently requires that children’s products be tested for safety before they arrive on store shelves — something that many consumers already assumed was happening. RW – Another oft-repeated consumer group assertion, never proven.  It has always struck me that this argument is just transference. I have no doubt that folks like Weintraub always wanted this, and simply assume that everyone shares their “common sense” desires and fears.  It sets limits on lead in children’s products, sets infant product and toy safety standards, and bans certain phthalates, which are chemicals linked to a variety of health risks. The law also creates a much-needed public database where consumers can easily report and research product safety problems. We have already seen the successful results of CPSIA. Most recently, on June 28, 2011, new crib standards went into effect, which means that cribs sold in stores must meet the most protective safety standards in the world. This will give parents and caregivers the long-overdue peace of mind that when they purchase a new crib, it will be a truly safe place for their baby. Some small toy manufacturers have raised concerns about the costs of testing their products to the new safety standards. These concerns, and narrowly tailored ways to reduce the costs for very small children’s product manufacturers, are useful to discuss. RW – The nauseating cynicism of this remark cannot go unaddressed.  Ms. Weintraub argued for two years that the agency “needed time” to implement the law and to work out the kinks.  At that time, she and the other Dems argued that there was “nothing wrong” with the CPSIA that the CPSC couldn’t fix in its implementation and that consideration of legislative fixes was not merited until that process was complete.  Three years later we are still subject to this on-going implementation . . . that is, those of us who haven’t gone belly up.  Weintraub expressed little interest in “discussing” these issues way back then.  Later, Ms. Weintraub tried to justify Henry Waxman’s lame-o effort at a cursory amendment of the CPSIA that offers negligible relief.  Here is an excerpt from her House testimony dated April 28, 2010 (15 months ago) on this topic: ” Special provisions for small businesses includes allowing certain businesses to be exempt from third party testing when the Commission finds that reasonable testing methods assure compliance with relevant consumer product safety standards . We believe, however, that the term “small batch manufacturer” is defined too broadly . We commend the fact that the language does not allow small batch manufacturers to obtain exceptions for durable infant or toddler products or lead paint, cribs, pacifiers, small parts, children’s metal jewelry, baby bouncers, walkers and jumpers. Because of the fatal nature of the defects in many of these types of products, as demonstrated by recalls in the past, all manufacturers should be required to meet the same safety and testing requirements. We could not accept a broadening of either the definition of small batch manufacturer or a limitation of those products not covered by this provision .”  [Emphasis added]  The CPSC never did identify any such “reasonable testing methods” even though the “hunt” has gone on for three years now.  Even Ms. Weintraub must blush when she tells you that such issues deserve “discussion”. Unfortunately, instead of fixing concerns of the truly small manufacturers, HR 1939 goes too far and rolls back important consumer protections created by CPSIA in a number of ways. HR 1939 reduces safety testing for children’s products by undermining independent safety testing requirements for most children’s products. This would place us in the same dangerous situation we were in 2007 and 2008, when millions of beloved toys were recalled because of excessive lead paint, strong magnets that when swallowed in multiples could rip apart a child’s intestines and chemicals that turned into the date-rape drug when swallowed. RW – The issue in 2007 and 2008 was NOT that the law did not protect consumers.  In fact, if anything, the issue was that the agency did not (adequately) protect consumers. The bad behavior that prompted the CPSIA was clearly illegal, as the agency could act to enforce if it so chose.  After all, they issued hundreds of recalls under prior law.  Please pause and give that a little thought.  Weintraub’s argument is pure urban legend, but helpful urban legend for the tall tale she is trying to sell. It is also worth noting that Gib Mullan, the then head of Compliance at the CPSC admitted during the second session question-and-answer session at the CPSC Tracking Labels hearing on May 12, 2009 that the agency had never seen the strong magnet hazard evidenced by Magnetix previously and at first mistook it as a “small parts” issue.  No law can prevent the unknown and the not previously experienced from happening.  That is a safety fantasy.   In addition, the “date-rape drug” incident involved an unapproved change in materials by a factory which no testing regime would have caught (CPSIA or not). The safety issue was completely unprecedented and the product was immediately recalled without argument by a very safety conscious toymaker.  Only in Weintraub’s self-serving world is this incident useful . . . to terrorize.  Under most circumstances, it should be held up as a great public-private partnership and a sign that there are good people in the industry. Under this bill, virtually all toys would no longer have to be tested for safety before they come into our homes — these products would be safety-tested only if and when CPSC undertook a laborious and complicated series of steps, including a cost-benefit analysis that emphasizes testing costs over health and safety benefits. RW – Weintraub here spurns the President’s Executive Order which MANDATES cost-benefit analysis by the CPSC.  This arch position conforms to the surprising world view of Bob “Over My Dead Body” Adler and Inez Tenenbaum and certainly suits their Dem agenda.  It is, unfortunately, an affront to the President’s order.  It is also economic nonsense .  The OPPOSITE is correct, at least according to the Nobel Prize committee which awarded the 1991 Economics Prize to Ronald Coase for his work proving the need for regulatory cost-benefit analysis.  Mr. Coase proved that ignoring cost-benefit analysis exposes all of us to the risk of being impoverished by government regulation.  Thanks, Rachel, for the great idea! It is unclear if CPSC would ever have the resources, time or information to complete what this bill demands of them, and it is therefore unclear if toys would ever be subject to independent testing. Independent testing not only prevents unnecessary injuries to children, but it can also prevent costly recalls for the manufacturer — a benefit to consumers as well as manufacturers. RW – Here Rachel spins an even bigger tall tale, that preserving mandatory testing is in manufacturers’ best interests.  Apparently she is the only one who knows this.  The people who actually work for companies affected by this rule have been howling for three years-plus.  Here Rachel sets us all straight – the problem is we’re wrong and she’s right.  Oh, now I see it!  Her reasoning relies on the urban legend that in the absence of mandated testing, testing will cease.  That’s nonsense and is not supported by data.  We have been testing since I got to Learning Resources, more than 20 years ago.  So, if mandated testing is necessary to force testing, why were we testing way back then?  Simple – we wanted to know we were complying with the standards.  Standards drive testing, and enforcement can make testing prevalent, even universal.  Mandated testing just raises costs, unfortunately.   I have previously addressed this issue in a blogpost. HR 1939 increases the amount of lead that would be permitted in children’s products. CPSIA currently requires that all parts of children’s products comply with a single, unambiguous standard for lead content. The proposed legislation would replace that clarity 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. As a result, parents and other consumers will no longer have the confidence that all parts of all children’s products are safe for their children. Lead is a known toxin where even small amounts can be harmful by decreasing a child’s IQ. There is no reason why there shouldn’t be a single, strong standard that simply keeps lead out of children’s products. RW – No reason, huh?  Space does not permit me to reduce this absurd statement to rubble.  I have been writing about the many common sense reasons to modify standards for three years now.  ECADA as a matter of fact does very little to change standards except to codify some sensible concessions already made by the CPSC in stays applying to metals.  If you are terrorized by the prospect of bicycle licking or the horrors of playing brass instruments in the school band , ECADA’s changes will no doubt keep you up at night. Your fears are nothing that our proposed National Xanax Fund can’t address.  The idea that different standards for different products aimed at different ages of children are somehow “defective” flies in the face not only of common sense but also the regulatory tradition at the CPSC.  Before whackjobs began to dominate the safety discussion, and before the agency had its brain removed by Congress, the regulators were able to see the sense of crafting different rules for two year olds, six year olds and twelve year olds. And nobody thought the same rules should apply to rhinestones, pens, ATVs and books.  If you are an experienced parent, you might know something about the need to modify rules for different ages of children. I have tried to regulate teenagers with the same rules as toddlers and received some “pushback”.  And when I try to keep toddlers safe by applying sensible rules designed for teenagers, that doesn’t seem to work either.  HR 1939 undermines the effectiveness of the new crib safety standard. The bill would carve out a large exception to the bipartisan standard for cribs in child-care facilities. Under the bill, some child-care facilities would not have to replace existing fixed-side cribs even if the cribs violate the most basic crib safety standards — slats too far apart, non-compliant corner posts and failing mattress supports. Parents should be assured that the cribs their babies sleep in meet the strongest crib standards — both at home and in child-care facilities. The new, robust crib standards just went into effect for new cribs consumers can buy in stores and will apply to hotels, motels and child-care facilities in 18 months. Carving out child-care center cribs from this important protection moves the safety bar backwards. RW – I have tried to avoid biting on the bait of the consumer group attacks on ECADA for the innocuous and sensible crib rule changes.  It is in Ms. Weintraub’s interest to make you feel that there is some sort of evil cabal dominating the Republican Party which somehow induces them to play roulette with your babies’ lives.  Anyhow, it’s all a fiction but a helpful fiction to Ms. Weintraub’s purpose, namely to subvert efforts to amend the CPSIA.  Here is the “deadly” language that Ms. Weintraub protests so intensely: “(B) SPECIAL RULE FOR FIXED-SIDE CRIBS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN STATE OR LOCAL LAW REQUIREMENTS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a fixed-side crib that has not been recalled and that is offered or provided for use in a licensed child care facility (other than a family child care home) that is subject to the following requirements under the law of a State or a political subdivision of a State:  (i) The facility may not allow a child to remain in a crib for any significant amount of time while the child is awake, (ii) The facility may not place in a crib a child over the age of 16 months, (iii) An adult must be present whenever a child is in a crib.” Ms. Weintraub fails to deliver evidence that this exceedingly modest change could harm children based on actual injury data.  She just wants you to push the panic button.  ECADA only permits certain legacy FIXED SIDE cribs to remain in service.  I thought fixed side cribs were the “answer”.  Not if their inclusion in ECADA might help get it passed, apparently. HR 1939 allows the use of dangerous phthalates , which are hormone-disrupting chemicals that have been added to child-care articles like teething rings. This proposed bill would undermine CPSIA’s landmark protections against phthalates by allowing large, undefined exemptions to both the prohibition and interim bans on phthalates in toys and child-care articles. RW – Rachel again ventures into Whopperville to scare you about phthalates.  Let’s start by deciding how “dangerous” phthalates are.  Ms. Weintraub reasons that if (the infallible) Congress banned them, the chemicals are ergo dangerous. The law, in fact, only bans three chemicals permanently and has directed the agency to investigate another three.  On two previous occasions the agency has done just that . . . and concluded that phthalates don’t present a risk to children.  Ms. Weintraub omits to let you know that this provision was added to CPSIA at the last moment, without hearings or investigation, by California Senator Diane Feinstein of San Francisco and mentor to Nancy Pelosi.  Aha.  The science on phthalates is hardly an open-and-shut case – just watch 60 Minutes for perspective.  Ultimately, the greatest disservice to truth performed by Ms. Weintraub here is to distort what measly relief is being offered.  ECADA only allows us to stop testing components that cannot be touched or licked by kids.  That’s it.  The actual words:  ” ACCESSIBLE COMPONENT PARTS- Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, subsections (a) and (b)(1) and any rule promulgated under subsection (b)(3) shall apply to any accessible, plasticized component part of a children’s toy or child care article.” HR 1939 undermines the new CSPC product safety database . This new database allows public access to consumer complaints about product safety problems while giving the industry ample opportunity to view and comment upon such safety-related reports before they are posted. The database, available at http://www.saferproducts.gov, just went live in March. It will help consumers research products, help CPSC identify emerging hazard trends and help prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries. HR 1939 would place onerous hurdles on those seeking to report a safety problem, thereby discouraging the sharing of potentially lifesaving information with other consumers, companies and the government. RW – Oy vey.  There has been so much written on this subject that I can’t bear to write it again.  Ms. Weintraub intentionally ignores any point inconsistent with her political agenda.  I will leave it at that, but feel free to pour over my prior writings on the database (tagged on the side of the blog) for further details. Consumers demanded and received strong product safety reform from Congress in 2008. Undermining these important product safety improvements puts all of our children at risk. HR 1939 will not protect our children from product safety hazards. Rather, HR 1939 rolls the safety clock backwards and creates huge and unnecessary loopholes in our nation’s safety net. RW – One last point, to quote Eric Stone :  “ECADA gives CPSC broader subpoena and investigational authority. Not surprisingly, opponents do not mention such provisions since they do not fit the ‘Republican-industry conspiracy’ narrative.”  I love the “Republican-industry conspiracy narrative” part.  You can see how that might work well for Rachel. Rachel Weintraub is director of product safety and senior counsel at the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, D.C.

Follow this link:
CPSIA – Rachel Weintraub’s Distortions Justify Dem Refusal to Amend the CPSIA

CPSIA – Nancy Nord Chimes in on Baby Monitors

You gotta read Nancy Nord’s blog on the baby monitor recall. It speaks for itself and is basically on the topic of why they call certain actions “recalls” and others something else. In the controversial recall of Summer Infant baby monitor, Ms. Nord notably admits the involvement of the CPSC in this recall. Check it out. This is NOT my imagination.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Nancy Nord Chimes in on Baby Monitors

CPSIA – John Stuart Mill and Crib Safety

“I have observed that not the man who hopes when others despair, but the man who despairs when others hope, is admired by a large class of persons as a sage.”

John Stuart Mill
1828

The CPSC recently congratulated itself for banning drop-side cribs. Scott Wolfson clucked on Twitter: “RT @Scott_wolfson: The lifesaving crib rules approved by #CPSC today are a key part of the #CPSIA. #CPSC wants all babies to have a #safesleep.” Other people, like Rep. Jan Schakowsky, also rushed forward to take credit for this change in regulation.

To judge from these press releases, a real crisis in public safety has been addressed. Is that true?

Wasn’t it Winston Churchill who once said that history is written by the victors???

I have not touched the crib issue previously because, frankly, it’s too hot to handle. Who would want to defend a product associated with baby deaths? There but for the grace of G-d goes I. On the other hand, the projected compliance expense of $550 million is breathtaking, particularly given the fact that the agency’s ruling is both retroactive and mandates replacement of cribs in certain childcare facilities. Even Commissioner Robert Adler calls this expansion of the CPSC’s role as “uncharted territory“. This sets a new precedent for government (CPSC) intrusion that I find troubling, even under these circumstances.

The always astute Lenore Skenazy questions the CPSC’s justification of three fatalities a year linked to drop-side cribs. She labels herself “subversive” for looking at the numbers. [You know you were thinking it, admit it!] Based on the injury figures released by the CPSC, she notes that the deaths attributed to drop-side cribs are less than those attributed to spider bites (five per year). She puts the drop-side crib-related deaths in the context of 4 million births per year and asks where the limit is in our effort to save ourselves.

Skenazy rattles off many other death statistics (such as 1,300 per year from stair falls) for further perspective on the scale of the drop-side crib “crisis”. She does not discuss pool deaths, which number between 1-2 per day and generate 11-12 childhood emergency room treatments for serious injuries daily. But the obsession of this CPSC is drop-side cribs, so we should not worry about those other things . . . .

Lenore makes a good point. What IS the limit? And how much should we pay? Is this really a public health crisis, and if it is, aren’t all those other causes of childhood deaths similarly a crisis? Who gets to decide which crisis is our top priority?

As J.S. Mill points out, despair sells well so we are naturally inclined to accept on face value the shrill self-congratulations of the politicians who are so busy making us so safe. I have been battling the same self-justifications and self-praise by politicians and consumer “advocates” over lead for three years. Does the absence of injury statistics matter to anyone?

Interestingly, the CPSC provides some context on its crib decision. If you read through the document announcing the change, you will find out a few interesting tidbits:

• Despite Ms. Schakowsky’s claim to have created this regulatory storm, the industry has been working on standards for many years. ASTM F 1169–10, the full-size crib standard, was originally published in 1999 and has been revised several times since 1999, including 2010. The same can be said of the voluntary standards for non-full-size cribs. The statement in the CPSC press release noting that “[t]he federal crib standards had not been updated in nearly 30 years” is pretty misleading – the voluntary standards relied upon by the agency and the industry have been regularly revised. [Until this administration took over, the CPSC relied on voluntary standards as a matter of public policy.] Even more remarkably, please note that the current CPSC action adopts these voluntary standards as the new mandatory standards with minimal amendments, calling the adopted standards “substantially the same” as the voluntary standards. Hmmm.
• The CPSC initially issued mandatory standards for cribs in 1973 and amended them in 1982. There has been on-and-off activity at the agency in the ensuing years. Crib safety was not a new subject to the Commission when Ms. Schakowsky announced the latest crisis. Ms. Schakowsky didn’t solve the crisis either when she purportedly wrote this provision of the CPSIA. Is it actually certain that there ever was a crisis in drop-side cribs . . . or was Ms. Schakowsky simply looking to bulk up her hagiography?
• Annual sales of cribs are estimated at 2.4 million per year, including non-full-size cribs (approximately 300K per year). Thus, over 11 years (2000-2010), that’s 32 deaths and an estimated 26.4 million cribs sold and 40 million babies born. Crisis? There are approximately 591 models of full-size cribs and 81 non-full-size cribs on the U.S. market, according to the CPSC. In recent years, the CPSC has recalled 11 million “dangerous” cribs defect” since 2007 (about 40% of the estimated total sales in the last 11 years).
• A pilot CPSC project of data gathering on crib injuries from November 1, 2007 to April 11, 2010 generated a total of 3,584 “incidents”, including 147 deaths associated with full-size cribs. Some of these incidents go back as far as 1986, btw. Of the 147 fatalities, 107 were not related to any structural defect in any way. Of the 35 fatalities related to “structural problems”, 18 were related to drop-side cribs. [The CPSC document contains a detailed analysis of the injuries, as well.] So of entire pool of fatalities from cribs in this period, 18 of 147 were related to drop-side cribs in some way – 12% of the total fatalities. The CPSC press release somehow omitted this additional fact.

This data cannot be correlated to the December 17 CPSC press release in which they note 32 deaths since 2000 (11 years). There is no data provided on the AGE, CONDITION or QUALITY of the cribs involved in the deaths, no information on the MAINTENANCE or STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY of those cribs or whether the hardware failure was apparent or not. In its May 7th press release, the CPSC notes however that the 32 deaths include “some [fatalities which] occurred in cribs where the drop side detached without caregivers noticing the detachment, while some other deaths occurred after a consumer tried to repair the detached drop side, but the repair ultimately failed.” [Check out the photos to see what a consumer "repair" might look like.] No quantification whatsoever. Arguably, this CPSC statement suggests that any solution to the problem involves, in whole or in part, user education.

The CPSC did not supply data to distinguish between product failures/defects and parental or caregiver error or misuse. It’s all laid at the feet of the crib design. The CPSC’s “analysis” is pretty simple – you don’t need drop-sides for your baby to sleep comfortably in a crib, and if we eliminate drop-sides from the market, presumably a certain number of unnecessary infant deaths can be avoided. It’s a presumption, however.

It’s hard to argue with their logic but it’s also hard to know what has been accomplished. We do know that the ban of drop-side cribs costs a lot of money, however. Isn’t that relevant, even a little bit? If user education is essential to ANY “solution”, how do we know we have spent our $550 million well or achieved anything whatsoever? The precise mechanism leading to the fatalities cannot be determined from the paltry data released to the public. Table pounding by advocates is, regrettably, not data. As Mr. J.S. Mill notes, the advocates’ histrionics are likely to be taken as “sage” in this case. What if we knew that ten years out, the replacement cribs caused the same number of deaths or perhaps even MORE deaths? The rate of fatalities in these cribs in already remarkably low. How can we be sure that the new cribs will be better? Should we just take Nancy Cowles’ word for it?

I find it interesting that the crib industry has been rather quiet on this change in rules. There are literally dozens of suppliers of cribs in this country, and more than 11 million units have been recalled. Why such quiet from these companies? I suspect the reason is that most consumer do not blame the brands for these recalls, and few people are motivated to return their cribs. [That includes me. Consumer advocates label recalls "unsuccessful" when we the people don't do what they want us to do.] So the cost of the recalls is probably modest BUT the government is mandating that $550 million be spent by childcare providers on NEW cribs. Why would crib manufacturers object to this cost-effective stimulus plan?! Surely many people taking the old drop-side crib out of the attic will say “Whoa, that was recalled. I better buy a new one . . . .” Many, many people.

Thank you, CPSC, for making us so darned safe! The crib industry probably loves you (secretly). Not so sure about hotels and childcare providers. Ultimately I know who pays for all this, however, and it isn’t the consumer advocates or the regulators. It’s the guy who stares back at you from your bathroom mirror.

The CPSC for its part did something easy and self-serving: they saved us from yet another lurking danger that none of us could see, all at our expense. I wonder if the CPSC would be as enthusiastic in their actions if they had to pay for it out of their own budget (or pocket). The money they spend is OURS, and they never even need to steady their hand to write the check. I don’t know about you, but I think it’s much easier to spend someone else’s money, especially when there are a lot of zeroes involved. The CPSC is making us do it for our own good. Does anyone see a problem here?

The new rule sets dangerous new standards for CPSC (government) intrusion into our businesses and into our lives. The CPSC’s action means that the Commission thinks it’s now okay to take retroactive action with impunity. This is a BIG change in regulatory policy. Bob Adler notes: “The Commission has never before entered into a rulemaking, whether or not required by Congress, that not only has retroactive applicability, but also requires the replacement of every product in a given product class – particularly in an occupational setting like child care facilities.” OMG – and this is okay . . . why??? Because he says it’s a crisis and it’s important to do.

This is government power without restraint, and it’s a serious issue. This is much more serious that drop-side crib deaths. I do not know how to run a business in a market regulated by people who make up the rules to suit their mood. I thought there were protections against this.

Let’s hope Mr. Adler and his associates made a good judgment for all of us. They are spending our money and we have no choice but to do as we’re told. That’s “government of the people, by the people, for the people” nowadays, I guess.

I wonder what Abe Lincoln would think of this government . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – John Stuart Mill and Crib Safety

CPSIA – Vote on Database DELAYED

The CPSC Commission vote on the public database scheduled for tomorrow has been delayed until the day before Thanksgiving (November 24th). Talk about Turkey Day . . . .

We have seen delays like this in the past. These pauses generally reflect infighting among the Commissioners. Don’t be fooled by the squabbling – it doesn’t mean that any light bulbs are going on. The Commissioners know exactly what they’re doing when they install a database gift wrapped for trial lawyers. The Democratic majority and Republican minority may be on different sides but neither group is dumb – they don’t buy the baloney that the leftist consumer advocates fling around – they know it isn’t “extremely difficult” to keep your family safe from “dangerous products”, they know that American consumers have many ways and places to share negative experiences with products online, they know that this venue will be an abasement of basic due process rights of manufacturers. They get it – they know they will be sending us down the river when they adopt this rule.

The difference is that the Republicans don’t want to send us down the river. The Dems show absolutely NO SIGN of caring. The outcome of the vote is certain. So is the eventual loss of more jobs.

So what’s the point of the delay? Why not just get it over with? The extra week gives them more time to bicker among themselves. Perhaps that gives the appearance of dialogue and “debate”. Then they will pull the trigger.

You can guess where the bullet will go.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Vote on Database DELAYED

CPSIA – Jan Schakowsky Wants to Design Your New Home, Too.

801 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 9 days left until Election Day.

801 days without ANY help. Amazing . . . .

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the Illinois Congresswoman who informed the WSJ that I am a “cynical special interest” because I dared to participate in the upcoming midterm elections, is not content with rearranging your business and the Children’s Product industry. Now she wants to redesign your new home.

Does she have good taste, you ask. Well, read on and see what you think of Jan Schakowsky as your architect or decorator.

Your home is your last refuge, right? Not if she gets her way – but then again, she knows what’s best for you! After all, a bigger government involved in every aspect of your life is a BETTER government. The estimable Ms. Schakowsky is the sponsor of HR 1408 Inclusive Home Design Act of 2009. In other words, this law-in-the-makings is her handiwork.

She brags about this pending legislation on her Facebook page in posts dated October 6, so she must be pretty psyched about it. I gather she wants the electorate to know of her excellent leadership in Congress, so I thought I’d help out. Happy to lend a hand to such a “great” leader.

Best I can tell, Ms. Schakowsky latest brain wave is to require you to redesign your new home to be disability-friendly if you get “federal assistance”. The so-called purpose of the act is “[t]o require all newly constructed, federally assisted, single-family houses and town houses to meet minimum standards of visitability for persons with disabilities.”

And what might she have in mind, precisely? Anyone who receives “federal assistance” needs to design new homes to meet several ADA-like standards even if they are useless to the buyers. No matter that this will cost money or that you don’t want it. It’s good for you, Jan says so. It may also make it difficult for you to find new homes without these features. Like cod liver oil, you’ll get used to it!

As noted, to get into this spot, you need to receive federal assistance. Here’s a sample of what might constitute “federal assistance”:

“any assistance that is provided or otherwise made available by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or any program or activity or such agencies, through any grant, loan, contract, or any other arrangement, after the expiration of the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, including . . . grants, subsidies, or any other funds . . . services of Federal personnel . . . any tax credit, mortgage or loan guarantee or insurance. . . .”

In other words, if you even brush against the federal government in constructing your new home, you are COVERED by this law. Tax credit for your new energy-efficient furnace? You’re IN. HUD loan refinance for a development of several homes? You’re IN. Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac involved? You’re IN. Vet benefits? You’re IN. Inspected by a federal employee for some reason? You get the idea.

Hey, here’s the REAL idea – the government belongs in EVERY aspect of your life. Ms. Schakowsky doesn’t even think you should be allowed to measure the door frames in your house without her oversight. It doesn’t even matter if you have a disabled person living in the house – you MIGHT be visited by one and certainly, you would not able to accommodate that visit without Ms. Schakowsky’s supervision.

Perhaps you should invite her, too, just to work out the kinks. Uh-oh, I sense an amendment coming!

Had enough yet? If not, vote DEM on November 2nd so society can be reengineered a little bit more. On the other hand, if you have the vaguest sense that this is a runaway train and might need to be stopped before it’s too late . . . vote the other way.

The Dems brought this on themselves. They put people like Schakowsky in leadership roles. The Children’s Product industry is in tatters as a result. PLEASE STOP THE INSANITY ON NOVEMBER 2ND!!!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Jan Schakowsky Wants to Design Your New Home, Too.

CPSIA – What Are We Trying Achieve?

787 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 23 days left until Election Day.

Sean Oberle published a lengthy contemplation of the issue raised in my last post on the relationship between compliance and safety as objectives for regulators and for industry. Mr. Oberle’s essay speaks for itself, so I will not attempt to summarize it. He concludes with the following message: “Therein lies the frustrating and frightening aspect of product safety. Those of you tasked with ensuring product safety – industry rep, consumerist, and regulator alike – are trying to quantify ambiguity amid a chaos of demands … all of them in flux … I don’t envy you.”

Sean, boy are you right!

I think it’s worth discussing a few issues on compliance versus safety since Mr. Oberle devoted so much ink (or electrons) to the topic.

1. The law defines what the CPSC can and cannot do. It’s a shame no one told them . . . .

First and foremost, the CPSC exists because of the CPSA and its activities are governed by the CPSA. Recall authority is governed by Section 15 which limits the agency’s recall authority to “substantial product hazards”, namely a product that “. . . creates a substantial risk of injury to the public”. [Section 12 gives the agency additional powers to seek a court order for "imminent hazards".] In other words, the CPSC does not have the legislative authority to tilt at windmills – it cannot demand recalls for anything unless it presents a “substantial risk of injury to the public”.

Consider recalling 12 million glasses that the CPSC acknowledges in writing are SAFE. Substantial risk of injury?

Consider recalling more than seven million trikes sold over 14 years that caused six children to cut themselves. Children who were under three years of age and should have been under the care of attentive adults. Substantial risk of injury?

Consider recalling more than 400,000 Sarge cars because the little yellow dot on the wheel hubcap violated the lead-in-paint ban, and those dots were produced from two cans of paint. Substantial risk of injury?

One must distinguish between legerdemain and reality, between policy and what the law intended. It is a little focused-upon responsibility of the agency to exercise this judgment. Is it even possible for everything that happens to be a “substantial” risk? We know of cases where a single broken toy without an injury provoked an official investigation at the agency. Fair? Is this an activity that the CPSA authorizes? It is . . . if you are running the agency and you say it is. Arguably, the recall of the 480,000 Mattel Wheelies on September 30 was just such a case. Consumers apparently reported two broken cars with wheels that fell off, and no injuries were reported or implied. Substantial risk of injury? I question that.

2. The notion that we need all this supervision flies in the face of injury statistics. But it sure makes the CPSC look irreplaceable, doesn’t it?

I have already published and discussed ad nauseum the historical injury statistics from lead based on CPSC recall notices – ONE DEATH and THREE UNVERIFIED INJURIES over 11 years (1999-2010). If we were facing such a dire public health crisis, why weren’t kids dropping like flies from lead poisoning over such a long time period of “lax regulation”? If the harm was so widespread and so devastating, why aren’t any of these actual victims known? Names, addresses, photos, case histories?

A friend replied to me recently reasoning that there is no safe level of lead. Okay, I concede that lead can be dangerous but it is absolutely true that lead in present throughout our environment and in the air, food and water that we consume every minute of every day. So since we take in lead from several sources all the time, we know we are building up lead and this leads to several questions. If lead is so harmful at all levels, why aren’t we ALL showing the effect of our cumulative build-up of lead? How can you demonstrate that children’s products contribute meaningfully to the asserted “problem”? How can you prove that “fixing” children’s products will meaningfully change lead blood levels? And if you could prove those things (which cannot be done), how can you measure the return on investment of our multi-billion dollar annual investment? Remember, we can only spend those dollars one time – so is flushing them down the toilet on test reports REALLY our best use of scarce and irreplaceable dollars? How would you measure that?

But the more that the CPSC enforces the law against “bad” corporations, the more they scam the public into thinking they needed the help all along. They talk about recall statistics but never put them in the context of injury statistics. The proponents never compare lead injury statistics to other injury statistics like swimming pools.

[Is a child injured by lead "worse" that a child killed in a pool? It better be - because we are spending billions to prophylactically eliminate the possibility of purported lead injuries while leaving swimming pools open to continue a continuing skein of killings of more than one child each day. That's okay according to our Democrat-run Congress. Tell that to the family of drowning victim - they can take comfort in knowing that their child didn't have lead poisoning thanks to the relentless and remorseless enforcement of the CPSIA . . . .]

So as the regulators abuse and confuse the definition of hazard, they create an atmosphere of dependence. Oh thank you Mother Government for saving me! What would I do without you?!

3. Mr. Oberle reminds us that “Lack of incidents may not mean a product is safe.” And just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they AREN’T out to get you.

Mr. Oberle does not take an offensive stance on this topic, btw. He is right, you can sometimes catch something dangerous before it creates harm. Presumably a quicker recognition of the hazard in Magnetix might have prevented injuries. Responsible companies need to always keep a lookout for insights that reveal latent hazards.

On the other hand, injury statistics are a useful tool. If, as is the case for lead, the assertion is that the hazard is widespread and present over a lengthy period of time, injury statistics become QUITE relevant. So, if lead was such a terrible problem in children’s products (putting lead-in-paint aside, long ago banned), injury statistics over many years would reveal a latent problem. Think of the breadth of the definition of “Children’s Products” and think of the years of recall data available for study. We are looking at TRILLIONS of interactions with children every year in the United States alone. Where are all the lead victims? We cannot say that we don’t know the scale of this problem. We have apparently been running an “experiment” on the U.S. public for decades in the period the zealots label as “lax regulations” or “lax enforcement”. If lead-in-substrate were so dangerous, wouldn’t you expect to see SOME evidence of it?

If we must imagine the scale of the danger, can we spend imaginary dollars to deal with it?

4. The compliance hawks want to frame this as a financial question – how much is your safety worth? I think that’s the wrong question – I think the question is “how long do you want to have a job?”

I have already reported that our compliance group is currently up to six people from a historical one or two, and of course, our products are no safer today than in the past. They were always safe and still are, but it costs us a lot more to operate. That’s not good for you or for me.

So how do we pay for all this new bureaucracy? We have not raised prices, that’s impossible these days. We are lucky to have customers and cannot spit in their faces with a price increase. Think of your business – it won’t fly.

We also need to hit profitability targets because we need to remain financable. We do not get money from “money fairies” – we have to deal with a bank, just like you. Our bank prefers to see that we make money. I know that doesn’t seem very civic-minded but I can’t fault them for their POV. In any event, I think it’s elementary that a business needs to make a profit to have the model sustain itself. Therefore, we cannot commit ourselves to ever-eroding profitability. When our costs rise, we cut elsewhere . . . just like you do.

Needless to say, we have skinnied up a lot since 2007. We have a much-reduced headcount and operate far more efficiently. This is how everyone behaved during the financial crisis and the jobs have not returned, in part because the economy remains sluggish. With our rising overhead relating to pointless regulations, what can we do? We must recover the money from activities that are focused on raising revenues. In effect, we are discontinuing activities that create growth to fund activities that are pure costs.

What’s the math behind this? Consider how we recover a dollar of bureaucratic cost from productive activities. If you are already operating efficiently and cannot wring out big productivity gains (as may be the case post-financial crisis cost reductions), then how do you pay for an additional dollar of overhead cost? When you eliminate a “productive” dollar of cost to pay for an unproductive dollar of cost (e.g., you trade a dollar of marketing promotion for a dollar of test costs), it’s not an even trade. No, because your dollar of productive cost creates gross margin whereas your overhead produces no profit whatsoever. Your productive dollar of cost produces gross profit which defrays your operating costs and produces marginal net profit on top of that. Wiping out the dollar of productive cost also wipes out the contribution to operating costs, so effectively, only the associated marginal net profit can defray the unproductive cost. Since profit percentages are generally low for most of us, the ratio of productive cost dollars needed to be sacrificed to cover unproductive costs is probably on the order of 2:1 or 3:1. Hire another QC person and fire the equivalent of two people elsewhere. In our case, we do it by attrition. We just shrink away.

As if this weren’t bad enough, it’s also a recipe for disaster or business death in a worst case. The continued erosion of productive spending to finance unproductive spending has a dramatic impact on growth. Revenue flattens out or stays in a downward trend. It’s no surprise – you are starving your company of investment dollars as you spend at constant levels. You have simply shifted your spending from productive uses favoring growth to unproductive uses that will not create growth. Presumably, those of you with children have discussed the merits of eating fruits and vegetables versus eating potato chips. It’s no different for a business and how it consumes dollars. We will never grow up to be big and strong if Mother Government restricts our financial diet this way.

Sean’s right. I don’t envy you . . . or me. This makes me very pessimistic about the future.

I hope you are mad as hell and won’t take it anymore. In 23 days, you will get to vote. DO IT!

Read more here:
CPSIA – What Are We Trying Achieve?

CPSIA – Daiso Death Penalty

Ole’ paranoid Rick of the vivid imagination has been suggesting that the massive powers accorded to the CPSC by the CPSIA may be used with few controls. This can lead to serious excess. Crazy, right?

Remember the Japanese company Daiso? I mentioned them last October for the first phthalates recall in U.S. history. That recall was for 40 uninflated toy baseball bats, something that could be held in one hand. Not even one box full. Clearly a national emergency. Interestingly, this urgent recall violated the promise of CPSC staff made at ICPHSO in February 2009 that the focus of enforcement of the phthalates ban would be on chew toys and bath toys, neither of which includes inflatable baseball bats. Broken promise by regulators? Details, details. I know, I’m just picky.

Anyhow, I mentioned Daiso again a few weeks ago for the absurd penalty assessed against them in the amount of $2.05 million. Absurd, unless you are Daiso, then perhaps you don’t think it’s so absurd. This penalty was assessed for a pattern of behavior that included five recalls of 19 items and 698 total units over two years, including the 40″dangerous” baseball bats. Daiso apparently also had various undisclosed disputes over imports stopped at the ports. Clearly something else was going on . . . but $2.05 million? I made the point that this is excessive and lacked any apparent effort to measure the agency response and escalate it in some appropriate way. Instead, it was escalated from zero to $2.05 million.

Notably, the CPSC signalled its “seriousness” by sic’ing the U.S. Attorney on Daiso, taking the unusual step of seeking an injunction. Hmmm. Nightmare scenario, all because of 698 units recalled. Anything goes nowadays.

I hate the idea that Daiso is precedent that could justify just about . . . anything. Now consider Chairman Inez Tenenbaum’s own words about the Daiso situation (from the recent Consumer Federation of America conference):

“To show how serious we are about enforcement at the ports and holding importers accountable, all of you should know that just last week we levied a serious fine – a $2 million fine – against a west coast importer named Daiso. Daiso repeatedly ignored our warnings to stop importing children’s products that violated federal rules on lead paint, lead content and small parts. Now the fine was large, but that wasn’t the big news. The big news is that we are being more creative in the use of our enforcement actions. We secured an injunction that completely stops Daiso from importing children’s products into the country. We worked closely with the Justice Department on this case, and Daiso has a very high hurdle to jump over to EVER get back in the import business again. The company must hire a safety professional and prove to us that it knows our laws and is in compliance with our laws.”

[Emphasis added]

So Ms. Tenenbaum believes she has the right to use her powers to put companies out of business. In this case, it appears that she really does not want to be crossed. Daiso, for whatever reason, didn’t measure up to agency expectations. Could be venality. Could be incompetence. Could be big company-itis. I have no idea. Nonetheless, it is clear that there were no penalties along the way (at least, not announced). There were no publicly-announced regulatory interim steps at all other than the five recalls of trivial amounts of product. Could it be that five recalls totally 698 units with no injuries reported might not seem like an emergency? Not anymore – stop the presses if it happens to you. The U.S. Attorney may be coming soon! Then – boom! – you’re out of business, courtesy of the U.S. government.

This could happen to you. And me, especially for writing this blog. That makes me “uncooperative”. It’s a “Father Knows Best” world now.

[For more info on how the CPSC is in the pocket of "consumer advocates" who are haters of companies who dare (stupidly) to cater to children's markets, read the rest of Ms. Tenenbaum's speech at the CFA meeting.]

Read more here:
CPSIA – Daiso Death Penalty

CPSIA – Washington Post Says Cadmium Issue is Overblown

Tell me it’s not true – we can’t panic about cadmium anymore?! The Washington Post thinks the CPSC may have gone a bit too far in demanding that every American throw away all their children’s jewelry based on a newspaper article they read somewhere: “Very little is known about cadmium’s potential health effects on children, [Dr. John Rosen, chief of environmental sciences at the Children's Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx] says, because it’s never been known to be a problem, ‘Pediatricians don’t look for it, they aren’t knowledgeable about it, and there are not any particular concerns about it.’” [Emphasis added]

The Post concludes: “So, while this is certainly no matter to pooh-pooh, and it’s important for the government to take whatever steps it must to keep poisonous metals out of the marketplace, it doesn’t sound like occasion to panic, either.” [Emphasis added]

We knew that Senators are absolutely ignorant of science so their foolishness can be understood, but what about the CPSC? Aren’t they on a different level? In the olde days, the CPSC used its professionals for their highly-refined expertise. Today, the staff brainiacs are used to bureaucratically shovel paper from one end of their desk to the other, or to practice falling in line. The folks at the top, the (Democrat) politicians, seem to have the same mastery of science as their Congressional overlords and a similar disregard for the consequences of their actions.

So Inez Tenenbaum went on a media blitz, ably assisted by her associate Scott Wolfson, and SLAMMED the jewelry industry. They had seemingly done virtually no homework (if reading an AP story doesn’t count as “research”), neglecting to take advice from the many Ph.D.s that they employ, and went ahead with an astoundingly irresponsible spree of rulemaking on the fly. And the consequences to them?

There’s the rub – there won’t be any. But there should be. This kind of tort is remediable in the private sector with lawsuits and damages. Not sure how easy it would be to prosecute such high ranking public officials for their conclusion-jumping. We can certainly count on our fearless leader Obama to COMMEND them for their precautionary actions. Surely by putting the jewelry industry out of business, they must have saved lives . . . somewhere. The nice thing about these folks, if they can assert it, it’s “true”. Or true enough.

What a sorry episode, and even with the Post on record with a calming and balanced summary of cadmium’s risks, the train already left the station. Expect the next attempt at an amendment to the CPSIA to include dramatic restrictions on cadmium. Congress will save us, don’t worry.

Hey, science is overrated. Trust me.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Washington Post Says Cadmium Issue is Overblown

CPSIA – Must Read in the Denver Post

Let me say, here and now, that if I am chosen for next year’s committee, THIS GUY gets my vote for Nobel Peace Prize in 2010!

Opinion

Harsanyi: They’re tragically delicious

By David Harsanyi

Posted: 10/14/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

How can Americans be expected to wrestle with the myriad of dangers that confront them each day? Insalubrious cereal? Unregulated garage sales? Pools of death? Sometimes it’s too much to process.

You know what we are desperately crying out for? An army of crusading federal regulatory agents with unfettered power. Who else has the fortitude and foresight to keep us all safe?

Mercifully, as The Washington Post recently reported, many of President Barack Obama’s appointees “have been quietly exercising their power over the trappings of daily life . . . awakening a vast regulatory apparatus with authority over nearly every U.S. workplace, 15,000 consumer products and most items found in pantries and medicine cabinets.”

If there’s anything Americans are hankering for in their everyday lives, it’s a vast regulatory apparatus. Hey, it’s dangerous out there.

That’s why the new chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission recently unleashed 100 agency inspectors to investigate whether or not swimming pools in America were equipped with a drain cover to prevent children from entrapment.

Nearly 0.9 children fall prey to this sadistic killer each year. With the compassionate guidance of federal officials, we will almost surely see this number plunge to 0.8 children per year.

It should be noted that each tragic year that passes by, an estimated 300 children under the age of 4 drown in swimming pools. Why our government sits idly by as this watery assassin targets
the most vulnerable among us is a mystery.

Don’t get me started on food. Washington will not rest until every one of our children is forcing down some gravel-based Mueslix after morning calisthenics in the name of a glorious preventive care revolution. I get it. They’re fat.

This is why I am grateful that one courageous soul has finally stood up to the menacing influence of Big Cereal. Yes, Food and Drug Administration commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg has had enough of deceitful infiltration of Cheerios, demanding that General Mills cease and desist a marketing campaign that peddles the fallacious claim that the oat-based cereal can lower cholesterol.

Why stop with oats? Trix are not only for kids, you know. Lucky Charms are nowhere close to being “magically” delicious.

What Lucky Charms does do is perpetuate the stereotype that the Irish are a bunch of oft-inebriated jerks — which everyone knows is only true about 70 percent of the time.

Isn’t there a statute we can pass in Congress to end the hate?

Then again, it’s not only those scheming Irish that are hawking their wares — unregulated — on concrete suburban driveways and inner city thrift stores across this country.

The “Resale Round-up,” launched by the CPSC, finally limits the power of these merchants of death who recklessly barter second-hand toys to unsuspecting civilians at low prices. Consider that Tonka truck — the one that you somehow outlasted — contraband. If not, you could be fined thousands of dollars.

The only question now is how did any of us survive this long?

Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for the Study of Regulation at New York University Law School, points out that “In the Bush administration, the problem was that the political folks were hostile to the mission.”

It is no surprise that Bush administration — a close second to Big Cereal in wickedness — was hostile to regulating the rhinestones on your kids’ denim jackets. Apparently the depths of its depravity knew no bounds.

The mission? Simple. Keeping you safe. Because everyone knows that parents aren’t equipped to keep their children safe until a bureaucrat explains exactly how it’s done.

And those parents who are neglecting their children’s safety, well, they always care more once government gets involved. Right?

E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Must Read in the Denver Post

CPSIA – Washington Post Notes Zealous CPSC Enforcement Actions

In today’s Washington Post, Lyndsey Layton wrote an article entitled “A Vigorous Push From Federal Regulators” in which the current enforcement approach of the CPSC is given considerable space. The Post notes the decision by the CPSC to make rhinestones illegal as an example of “getting tough” on the law. [Btw, for those of you playing along at home, the CPSC has yet to deign to call me or answer my letter on rhinestones dated September 17. I shouldn't be surprised, after all they have thousands of similar unanswered questions on their desks - what's so special about me?!]

The Post sums up the problem as follows: “‘It’s “shoot first and ask who we shot later,”‘ said Gary L. Yingling, a lawyer and pharmacist who worked for a decade in the FDA general counsel’s office and now represents companies regulated by the agency. ‘My concern is whether they’ve dotted their i’s, crossed the t’s, understand the statutory regulations and understand what the agency did yesterday. That’s a real concern.’”

Ms. Tenenbaum, from the same article: “We are enforcing the law; that’s what we do.”

Of course, the obvious problem here is that these regulators refuse to exercise judgment. They tend to hide behind their claimed responsibility to enforce the law (implying that this process must proceed without an exercise of judgment) and fail to explain or justify their use of force on any grounds rationally related to safety. Perhaps they feel this cleanses them of responsibility for their actions, as they didn’t write the law. It’s a classic bureaucrat’s excuse – don’t talk to me, I am just following orders. There is historical precedent for fearing government officials with this attitude.

Perhaps he CPSC will go on its merry way and put us all out of business, hobble a great industry and harm millions of kids by depriving them of essential products necessary to their development or preservation of their standard of living – but only YOU can stop them. The agency (which used to brag about its broad “enforcement discretion” back in the olde days at the beginning of the year) will respond to its Congressional overlords. You need to carpetbomb them with emails, calls and letters expressing your concern. Make sure to let them know how you have been victimized by the law and how it is harming kids in your community. We need to raise a holy stink if we want any chance to stopping the vigorous enforcers.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Washington Post Notes Zealous CPSC Enforcement Actions