CPSIA – Nancy Nord Op-Ed on the Wasteful 100 ppm Lead Standard

From the Washington Times (July 18, 2011): NORD: Playing around with toy makers Stricter lead regulations will cost jobs without making children’s products safer The Obama administration has recognized that excessive and unnecessarily burdensome regulation is a drag on the economy. As the administration has worked to promote job creation, it has publicized its efforts directing agencies to eliminate or revise unnecessarily burdensome and inefficient regulations. Apparently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not gotten the word. The commission’s failure to get the word is no more apparent than in its efforts to implement the Consumer Product Safety Improvements Act. The legislation was enacted after agency recalls of imported products illuminated the issue of import safety. The goal of the law is to assure that products intended for children are safe, a goal for which there is universal agreement. The devil, of course, is in the details, and the details of implementing this laudable statutory goal are devilish for sure. For the rest of the article, please click here .

View post:
CPSIA – Nancy Nord Op-Ed on the Wasteful 100 ppm Lead Standard

CPSIA – WSJ’s NINTH EDITORIAL Opposing the CPSIA

REVIEW & OUTLOOK JULY 20, 2011 Toying With Deregulation Another agency ignores Mr. Obama’s executive order. Here’s a question for White House regulatory czar Cass Sunstein: Do Presidential executive orders mean anything? Only last week President Obama asked independent agencies to examine existing rules and get rid of the duds, but nobody is listening. Within days of the executive order, the Consumer Product Safety Commission voted 3-2 that it is “technologically feasible” to impose a lower limit on lead content in children’s products, reducing the level to 100 parts per million from 300 parts per million. The new limit, which will go into effect August 14, will mean one more round of hair-pulling for small business owners who will have to change their manufacturing processes and junk existing products that don’t meet the new standard. The three votes in favor came from Mr. Obama’s chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum and two other Democratic commissioners. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act passed in 2008 in a frenzy of concern over lead content in toys from China, and it has since tormented anyone who makes or sells bicycles, books, children’s jewelry and so much more. Its strictures have imposed costs for testing, recalls and other inconveniences without any reasonable correlation to the risks to children. “No sweetheart, don’t eat that bicycle!” According to the CPSC, the plan to require that products be 99.99% lead free is reasonable because manufacturers would still be able to find materials and because some products already comply. While the additional safety gain will be negligible, the change will do damage in other ways, causing companies to avoid recycled metal and plastic, which may contain higher amounts of lead. It will also raise costs for metal parts, potentially driving some businesses to substitute plastic for metal, or stop producing children’s products. In the bicycle industry, a quarter of manufacturers have stopped making kids bikes. Instead of fixing its manifest flaws, Congressional Democrats who wrote the law have shrugged off small business complaints and opposed any changes. Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton and Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee Chair Mary Bono Mack introduced reforms earlier this year that would revise the law and give the CPSC greater authority to make regulation decisions based on actual risk. The bill is waiting for a mark-up at full committee but any reprieve would likely come too late for businesses facing the mid-August deadline. Mr. Obama’s recent executive order is voluntary, but the President told agency heads that getting rid of red tape was an opportunity to “forge a 21st-century regulatory system that makes our economy stronger and more competitive.” Perhaps Mr. Sunstein will tell toy makers it’s the thought that counts.

Read this article:
CPSIA – WSJ’s NINTH EDITORIAL Opposing the CPSIA

CPSIA – You’re Only SAFE if It’s 99.99% Lead-Free . . . But Don’t Tell the EPA

Last week, the Democrats took action to protect you and your kids from the perils of lead.  As we have been relentlessly reminded by non-scientists, there is “no safe level of lead” – just ask Bob Adler and Inez Tenenbaum.  Now, in the wake of the conclusion that reducing lead content from 300 ppm (lead-in-substrate) to 100 ppm will produce “minimal” health benefits (read, none), the CPSC Commission voted three Democrats to two Republicans to reduce the lead limit to 100 ppm.  Reducing lead standards from 300 ppm to 100 ppm can be expressed a different way mathematically.  This is a reduction from 99.97% lead-free to 99.99% lead-free.  [ Credit to Anne Northup for the mathematics!] This will cost billions and the economic devastation was ALSO documented by the CPSC Staff in their analysis on the 100 ppm standard .  Nevertheless, the non-scientists who rule the roost at the CPSC saw nothing but health upsides in this technologically feasible but economically absurd feat.  And, as we know, injuries to children have an infinite value when you are unable to assess risk.  The numbers work out – yes, the cost may be in the billions and the reduction in incentives will cost yet more, but the savings are infinite!  Even one avoided injury is an infinite savings.  Queue the tears . . . .  What-a-deal! Ironically, last week the EPA bowed to political pressure and in an exercise of common sense, eased up on precautions against lead-in-paint in housing stock.  Hello?  Did you catch that one?  Twelve Senators signed a letter in April to protest this proposed rule as excessive and damaging to small business, and bingo, something good finally happened.  Olympia Snowe was so delighted that she put out a press release to celebrate it.  Please note that the EPA acknowledges that lead-in-paint in housing stock is the principal source of lead poisoning in the United States.  [It sure ain't toys.]  They have previously acknowledged in writing ( lucid writing, actually ) that their rules on lead need to be measured and that the economic impact of their rules must also be carefully assessed. The EPA does not attach an infinite value to injuries, even to children .  They aren’t idiots.  Draw your own conclusions. Hello, Senators, anyone home? The foundation of the “no safe level of lead” slogan has been laid by the American Academy of Pediatrics, a political organization masquerading as a professional organization.  This organization was aggressively and justifiably attacked by Anne Northup during the 100 ppm Commission meeting.  It is rare to see anyone attack these people, perhaps besides me (not a fan . . .), but do they ever deserve it.  Here is what Dr. Dana Best of the AAP told a House Subcommittee on April 7, 2011: ” Exposure to lead is amply documented to cause the loss of intellectual capacity. On average, children whose blood lead levels (BLLs) rise from 10 to 20 micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dL) lose two to three IQ points. More recent studies have shown an even greater impact on IQ of BLLs under 10 mcg/dL. Key studies reported a loss of 4 to 7 IQ points in children whose lead levels rose from 1 mcg/dL to 10 mcg/dL. These studies suggest that “low” levels of exposure – meaning BLLs less than 10 mcg/dL – cause proportionately greater harm than higher levels. . . . The medical and scientific literature are in substantial agreement that an increase of 1 mcg/dL in blood lead level is capable of causing the loss of approximately one IQ point in children whose blood lead level is under 10 mcg/dL.”  [Enphasis added] Dr. Best, well-known for her fear of children licking bicycles , has previously posited “millions” of victims of lead-in-substrate .  Despite taking such a dramatic stand, Dr. Best cannot seem to name even ONE victim or lead-in-substrate or provide a single case history demonstrating that such a victim has ever been located . . . anywhere.  Not even one.  Doesn’t matter, apparently.  When you’re right, you’re right. But is Dr. Best actually RIGHT?  Fascinatingly, when Dr. Best plugs the notion that driving lead concentrations below 10 mcg/dl will have some defined (definite) health benefits, she flies in the face of the official AAP Policy Statement on Lead Exposure in Children (recently restated on May 1, 2009).  The Policy Statement does NOT support her assertions – and she is on the committee that wrote/approved the statement.  You might say she got it wrong, or you might just say she’s a liar.  Is it really possible to be that incompetent?  Here’s what the Policy Statement says : ” Canfield et al recently extended the relationship between blood lead concentration and IQ to blood lead concentrations less than 10 g/dL. They observed a decrease in IQ of more than 7 points over the first 10 g/dL of l ifetime average blood lead concentration. . . . To confirm the adverse effects of lead on IQ at these concentrations, however, more children whose blood lead concentration has never been more than 10 mcg/dL should be studied. A reanalysis of the primary data from several of the prospective studies is underway to help resolve this issue. At the moment, however, these data have not yet been incorporated into policy, and the CDC16 and AAP24 both currently use 10 mcg/dL (Table 2) as the blood lead concentration of concern. “  [Emphasis added] The Canfield study is the study Dr. Best cites in her Congressional testimony above.  Canfield predates the restated Policy Statement (obviously, or else it wouldn’t be cited), and thus forms part of the basis of the recommendation for further study.  The AAP recommends further study to confirm its suspicions - and those studies aren’t done.  Dr. Best certainly didn’t cite them.  The AAP Policy Statement goes on to recommend: “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT:  Fund studies to confirm or refute the finding that blood lead concentrations of less than 10 mcg/dL are associated with lower IQ. The next important step in lead research is conducting of studies in which confounding by socioeconomic factors is not so strong. Funding of studies in this area needs to be given high priority, as was done in the early 1980s when the question of effects of blood lead concentrations less than 20 mcg/dL was raised.”  [Emphasis added] So the AAP acknowledges in its policy statement that the case is not exactly open-and-shut.  Dr. Best, a member of the AAP’s Committee on Environmental Health , continues to bash away on the hustings with her hyperbolic and conclusory message.  Perhaps she feels that no one will likely check her work or contest her blather, so why not? Senators?  Congressmen?  Does anyone care about the effects on business when it comes to the out-of-control CPSC?  There are now 25 days until the 100 ppm standard goes into effect retroactively .  Starting packing up, guys.  Will Congress act?  I have no idea – this is not, and never has been, a question of doing the right thing for you or me or for anyone, really.  The Dems have an agenda, a political agenda, and your problems are beneath their consideration.  I can’t say who will be the winners, but the losers are well-known by now. 

Continue Reading:
CPSIA – You’re Only SAFE if It’s 99.99% Lead-Free . . . But Don’t Tell the EPA

CPSIA – Alliance for Children’s Product Safety Reacts to 100 ppm Decision

The Alliance for Children’s Product Safety, a coalition of small business owners, manufacturers, crafters and entrepreneurs who are impacted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), issued the following statement regarding the CPSC’s passage of the 100 ppm for lead content rule today by a vote of 3-2. “Today, just three days after President Obama issued an Executive Order instructing the CPSC and other independent agencies to examine all rules for ineffective and unnecessary burdens and instructed the agency that decisions should be made only after consideration of the costs and benefits of new regulations, the CPSC enacted yet another costly rule that will do nothing to improve product safety but will cause further job losses in the children’s product market. The CPSC has already acknowledged that businesses will not be able to meet the 100 ppm lead standard without cost and disruption, and that consistent compliance with the new standard will be nearly impossible due to material and inter-lab variability and regulatory uncertainty. Most importantly, overwhelming costs imposed by the new standard will disproportionately affect smaller companies. On the other side of the ledger, the CPSC admits the health benefits of the new standard will be ‘minimal’. President Obama’s Executive Order states ‘Wise regulatory decisions depend on public participation and on careful analysis of the likely consequences of regulation. . . . To the extent permitted by law, such decisions should be made only after consideration of their costs and benefits (both quantitative and qualitative).’ The President’s order notes the duty of the CPSC to regulate for public health and safety ‘while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.’ The new rule fails Mr. Obama’s test. It is disappointing that the majority of CPSC Commissioners ignored the explicit terms of the President’s order governing regulatory excess. The 100 ppm standard is a prime example of the economic self-destruction caused by the CPSIA: the imposition of costly and burdensome regulations that don’t improve product safety. It is now up to Congress to fix the numerous ‘unintended consequences’ of the CPSIA before more small businesses are forced to go out of businesses and more jobs are lost.” The Alliance for Children’s Product Safety, Chaired by Rick Woldenberg, is a coalition of small business owners, manufacturers, crafters and entrepreneurs who are impacted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). For additional information, please visit www.AmendTheCPSIA.com or contact Caitlin Andrews at 202-828-7637.

Original post:
CPSIA – Alliance for Children’s Product Safety Reacts to 100 ppm Decision

CPSIA – 100 ppm Vote – What They Knew and When They Knew it

What did they know and when did they know it?  The vote on 100 ppm is going on this AM, so it’s too late to do anything about the projected 3-2 vote implementing this pointless and self-destructive provision of the CPSIA.  From my perspective, having investing time and money in trying to stop this train wreck, it has been a long time since there was anything we could do about it.  It’s not our country. I have written about this provision endlessly in this space. I thought I would just put up a couple bits of info previously disclosed here for perspective on the vote. The 100 ppm lead limit vote is a vote of conscience.   The Commission knows what they are about to unleash.  I told them in no uncertain terms during my February 16th testimony : From the CPSC Staff analysis of 100 ppm : “[While] staff does not have data on potential lead exposure from products that have lead content less than 300 ppm, but more than 100 ppm, staff expects that the overall contribution of such products to lead exposure in children is minimal.” “Staff has found no intentional uses of lead in materials at concentrations at or near any of the three statutory lead limits (i.e., 100 ppm, 300 ppm, or 600 ppm). . . . Without the intentional use of lead in materials or the use of certain recycled materials, the lead content of most materials is substantially below the mandated limits.” Notably, NO consumer group has responded to my call or Congress’ call for the identities of previous victims of the “hazard” that the CPSC purports to regulate.  With no victims identified EVER ANYWHERE , the claims of benefits from this provision are spurious at best. What is the EPA’s opinion on lead in dirt ?   400 ppm in play yards and 1200 ppm elsewhere is just fine.  No word yet whether G-d, the manufacturer of dirt, has to provide comprehensive testing for compliance. What is the economic impact of this change?   The CPSC did not do a cost-benefit analysis as Obama’s Executive Order requires now, but only provided “Economic Information” (cost only, no benefit analysis): “[Bringing] products that do not currently comply with the 100 ppm limit into conformance is generally expected to result in increased manufacturing costs. . . . [Manufacturers] of children’s bicycles experienced a 20 to 25 percent increase in the costs of metallic components when the lead content limits were reduced from 600 ppm to 300 ppm. . . . Learning Resources, Inc., a manufacturer of educational materials and learning toys, said it expects a 10 to 20 percent increase in the cost of producing finished goods when the lead content limit is reduced to 100 ppm. . . . testing costs may rise . . . . Because there are limits to the reduction in profits that firms are willing and able to accept, some manufacturers are likely to reduce their selection of children’s products or exit the children’s market altogether. Some manufacturers may even go out of business. . . .” “The higher costs associated with metal components will probably result in some efforts to substitute lower cost materials. Plastics, for example, might be substituted for metal parts in some products. Some of these types of substitutions may affect the utility of the children’s products. . . . Additionally, and as noted in comments from the Handmade Toy Alliance and the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association, it is likely that the costs will have relatively greater consequences for smaller manufacturers and artisans, who have less bargaining power with components suppliers, fewer technical resources, smaller production runs to spread testing costs over, and smaller product lines.. . . ,There appear to be few readily available options for mitigating the costs associated with the 100 ppm content limit. . . .” Mr. Obama’s Executive Order requires the agency to make actual cost-benefit assessments of this change in law now.   I made the same call on February 16, 2011 during my testimony on 100 ppm: You can find numerous other clips from the 100 ppm hearing in posts in this space in late February or on YouTube.  You can also read my comment letter on 100 ppm.

Read the article:
CPSIA – 100 ppm Vote – What They Knew and When They Knew it

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 – Letter to CPSC re Executive Order on Regulatory Review

President Obama issued an  Executive Order yesterday instructing the CPSC to institute “retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.”   Notably, the order specifies “allowing interested members of the public to have a meaningful opportunity to participate in rulemaking”. In the White House blog announcing the Executive Order, Inez Tenenbaum is quoted as follows:   “Earlier this year, I directed agency staff to reinvigorate CPSC’s voluntary review process, which is intended to look at ways to maximize openness and public participation, and effectively review substantive regulations that may require revision, repeal, or strengthening . . . . I believe this approach is consistent with President Obama’s call for a sensible and streamlined regulatory system that is protective of public health and safety, and I look forward to working with the President and Congress, as appropriate, as our review process moves forward.” As you know, I have participated in CPSC public forums numerous times in the last three years, in addition to testifying before a House subcommittee twice on the CPSIA.  I have testified at the CPSC at least five times by my count, several times at the invitation/request of the agency.  I have done so at my expense.  In each case, I believe my testimony was disregarded.  My positions on the CPSIA have been publicly documented, principally in my blog which I know you read.  My positions have been consistent and backed up by data open to anyone’s review.   Now that the CPSC is subject to an Executive Order demanding real public input, I call on the agency to break with its past of disregarding inconvenient opinions or those that may subvert a political agenda, and allow the public to participate MEANINGFULLY in this critical process.  Those of us who have attempted to stop the CPSIA train wreck have been thoroughly marginalized by a process that uses us to create an impression of public dialogue without actually taking any meaningful feedback or adjusting any preexisting plans.  The President did not order the agency to provide a public forum for VENTING.  He has ordered the CPSC to afford the public a “meaningful opportunity to participate in rulemaking”.   To me, the Executive Order means that when we present reasoned arguments with actual data, the agency has NO OPTION other than to listen and take into account our views.  There is nothing in the Executive Order that indicates that consumer groups speak for the public or should be accorded extra weight in your deliberations, nor that manufacturers are somehow excluded from the group considered to be “the public”. It is time to recognize the legitimacy of the views of those of us who create much-needed jobs.    With that in mind, I call your attention to a blogpost I wrote on cost/benefit analysis of CPSC decisions and policies under the CPSIA.  Please see my post ” Do Accidents Happen? ” dated June 29th.  In this post, I explain that, as a matter of accepted economic theory and legal theory, the policies and decisions of the CPSC in the wake of the CPSIA have crossed the line into inefficiency and bad public policy.  This is PRECISELY the issue that the President has charged  the agency with investigating and resolving.  Speaking as a business owner in the field of children’s products, I can assure you that time is of the essence.  Every day counts at this point  as the cumulative impact of three years of CPSIA duress has taken a terrible economic toll with virtually no identifiable public health benefit. Writing a law with noble intentions does not ensure that it will be good law or one that benefits society.  In the case of the CPSIA, the issue has never been “What price safety?”  A failure to effectively enforce the law prior to the CPSIA never constituted a need for new safety rules anymore that a failure to enforce traffic laws means that we need lower speed limits.  New approaches to enforcement, perhaps, but new standards, no.  The question today is “What price survival”? Businesses and markets have been punished mercilessly in service of the CPSIA but to what end? President Obama’s order comes after years of public outrage over regulatory excesses and significantly, was issued shortly after a House Oversight hearing featuring two CPSC Commissioners examining the question of economy inefficiency in rulemaking.  I fully believe that the agency can never fix this mess without taking a strong stance on real CPSIA reform. The CPSIA took away the agency’s right to assess risk, not its ABILITY to assess risk.  This is a truly counterintuitive approach to safety, as safety is all about risk management.  There is no logic to this approach which sadly renders the expert opinions of the CPSCs legions of Ph.D.s meaningless at critical junctures for my market.  I am frustrated, to put it mildly, that ALL CPSC Commissioners do not regularly protest this subversion of process and responsibility.  This problem is at the core of the issue with the CPSIA and should be offensive to Democrats and Republicans alike.  The failure of any Commissioner to demand the right to exercise his/her honest judgment is akin to acknowledging that they do not trust themselves to act prudently and in the interest of the public.  Do the Commissioners really believe that taking away their authority is necessary to ensure sound decision-making?  That reasoning never worked with my teenagers.   Resolving the issues that the President has ordered the CPSC to examine will certainly require the exercise of judgment.  It is inescapable that the Commission must be prepared to deliver this unpleasant news to Congress for better or worse.   I look forward to a meaningful public process investigating these issues, and pledge my support and engagement in this process. I want to be helpful but ask in return that the agency turn over a new leaf and let rational arguments supported with data influence outcomes in CPSIA rulemakings and policies. Please do not hesitate to contact me with your comments and questions.  Thank you for considering my views on this important subject. Respectfully, Richard Woldenberg Chairman Learning Resources, Inc. Vernon Hills, Illinois

Continue reading here:
CPSIA – Letter to CPSC re Executive Order on Regulatory Review

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 – Do Accidents Happen?

Accidents happen . It’s an old saying. Once upon a time acts of fate were no one’s fault and we each bore the risk individually. Today, things seem different – when bad things happen, the search begins for someone to blame. The media and politicians feed this trend in hysterical tones (they profit by doing so). Individual responsibility is passé. In the case of children’s products today, blame is often laid at the feet of the product or its manufacturer by the CPSC. In some cases, the fault is clear (the hazard is “substantial”); in other cases, it’s not nearly as clear. In this article, I am only interested in those more ambiguous cases where there is an element of fate or other factors outside the control of the manufacturer. Should we be satisfied with how the CPSC draws the line? CPSC as Allocator The CPSC’s assignment of responsibility for injuries (in the form of recalls) is an inherently “legal” process. Our laws allocate risk and responsibility in society in the form of rights. About 75 years ago, legal theorists developed a field of inquiry known as “ law and economics ” which held that legal systems incorporate economic principles which ensure efficient allocation of resources and promote economic activity. “Rights” are essentially factors of production in economic terms. Ronald Coase of the University of Chicago Law School won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1991 for his seminal work on law and economics over the preceding 50+ years. Notably, Obama regulations “czar” Cass Sunstein is an ex-University of Chicago Law School law professor, as is President Obama himself.  Sunstein is closely associated with the study of law and economics . The issues confronting the CPSC over injuries to children are not emotional in nature at all. They are actually purely economic issues because the CPSC is a market regulator. It is an objective fact that injuries to children or other consumers are a cost we bear in exchange for the benefits of economic activity (availability of innovative manufactured products, the provision of jobs, etc.). Naturally, as a community we want to bear as few such costs as is efficient, again to promote growth, hence a societal interest in reducing injuries. The interest in reducing injuries is economic, however; we are not indifferent to cost and judge them in light of corresponding benefits. For instance, this explains why you do not wear a crash helmet on the way to work despite your awareness that fatal auto accidents happen every day. The costs outweigh the benefits. As a regulator, the agency brokers costs among a large group of parties. Consumer costs related to injury (including emotional loss and lost income, among other things) are weighed against manufacturer and market costs (recall costs, damage to brands, decreased growth, lost jobs, etc.). Whether the CPSC does the math properly or not, their decisions allocate resources by directing that one party incur costs to protect other parties from incurring costs. These decisions are purely economic even if stated in emotional terms. It is therefore clear that CPSC regulators have the capacity to promote economic growth or stifle it. Is the Goal “No Injuries” Ever? The CPSC has a legal responsibility to differentiate between a product hazard that causes accidents and accidents caused by the hand of fate. Congress limited the authority of the agency to regulate only those product hazards deemed “substantial” (a term of art under the CPSA and FHSA). As stated here many times previously, I believe the CPSC under current leadership regularly exceeds its legislative authority in this regard. The CPSC acts as though its role is to move society toward a Utopian ideal in which children are never injured or die prematurely. While I certainly don’t endorse injuries to children, the Utopian ideal of injury-free childhoods is illusory. In fact, an injury-free childhood could only be achieved at a very high cost. If the CPSC attaches an almost infinite value to preventing injuries, their allocation decisions will always constitute a transfer (a tax) and cause economic inefficiency (depress economic activity). This over-appraisal of the cost and consequence of childhood injury is illustrated by recent remarks of Chairman Inez Tenenbaum about a recall of one million pool drain covers. Ms. Tenenbaum appears to justify the recall on the possibility of injury despite media reports confirming that no deaths had occurred since 2009: “I want to make it clear that this recall announcement does not mean that one million drain covers will need to be replaced or repaired. The recalled covers were marked with the wrong flow rating . . . . Now for those public pools and spas that need their covers replaced or fixed, I have an obligation to advise that those facilities be closed at this time. They should reopen as soon as the work is completed that addresses the recall and brings the facility into compliance with the law. I know this is a very difficult message for many communities to hear so close to Memorial Day weekend, but we cannot risk a child becoming entrapped in a recalled drain cover .” [Emphasis added] This unstated policy attaching infinite value to childhood injury is much more than a strict liability standard because the CPSC only acts after an assessment of fault (rather than simply assigning responsibility). Isn’t the agency saying that the actions or inactions of manufacturers cause accidents? Recent Recalls Allocate Uncontrollable Costs to Manufacturers Consider some recent recalls for perspective: a. Big Lots recalls bunk beds recalled after a three-year-old child died when caught under a futon. b. Maclaren recalls one million strollers sold over 11 years because of more than a dozen fingertip amputations caused by a hinge. c. Mattel recalls more than 7,000,000 children’s trikes sold over 14 years because of genital injuries to ten young girls jumping on the trike. While it may be hard to look past these sometimes grisly childhood injuries, each of these cases calls into question whether the injuries were really the fault of the manufacturer. It’s not worth defending the product designs – let’s concede that in retrospect the products could have been better designed. Parental supervision appears to be an issue in each case. Manufacturers are typically unwilling to resist CPSC recalls by blaming consumers for injuries incurred using its products. That route is very risky and may in fact be more costly than going along with the CPSC’s dictates. As a result, the record in these cases is usually very one-sided – the CPSC has the first and last word on the subject, often on TV. Why would anyone stand up for these companies in public? There’s no incentive to do so; after all, the costs are paid by only one party, and that party isn’t talking. There is a fundamental error in routinely blaming manufacturers for accidents or fate. It is widely accepted that laws operate efficiently when they allocate responsibility for risk to the party in the best position to address the risk. Manufacturers can efficiently bear many such costs – but not all. For instance, product safety is best assigned to manufacturers rather than consumers. This is fairly obvious – manufacturers know their own products better than consumers do and are best able to take steps to keep products safe at the lowest possible cost (most efficient). This is the reason why the common law tort system assigns product liability costs to manufacturers. So who is in the best position to control costs associated with accidents or fate? Risks associated with acts of fate are difficult to control.  In fact, many foreseeable risks leading to childhood injuries are completely outside the control of manufacturers: 1. Fate 2. Failures of adult supervision 3. Product abuse or misuse 4. Mental deficiencies or mental illness (e.g., pica) 5. Risks well-known to the user (e.g., knives are sharp). I would advance that good adult supervision is the lowest cost way to prevent accidents with children’s products. There are significant limitations to what a manufacturer can achieve on behalf of consumers who don’t adequately supervise their children. Of course, drawing the line is a big issue here. But can’t an argument be made that adult supervision of the toddlers using the Mattel trike could have prevented foreseeable injuries from jumping on the trike? That a parent must carefully supervise the location of a child’s hands before closing a stroller? This is a simple point – manufacturers cannot control these factors from their offices or warehouses. The cost for a manufacturer to do so would be excessive. Some people might argue that assigning blame for matters of fate to manufacturers of consumer products is a neat way to efficiently spread cost among the community. Why not make the manufacturer pay the uncontrollable cost of fate relating to their products, and let them pass the costs along to consumers in the form of higher prices? Manufacturers can be converted into involuntary insurers by public policy, risk intermediaries for events of misfortune. The appeal is irresistible; after all, it doesn’t cost tax dollars to pay for these losses if we force responsibility on manufacturers. Of course, if you are a careful consumer, you might resent paying more to subsidize free-riding consumers who don’t take appropriate precautions.  But money aside, doesn’t it reflect a hardening of our society if if we ignore heart tugs when kids are injured? Is this heartless . . . or sensible? Is the CPSC doing the American public a favor by increasingly pushing responsibility for uncontrollable risks to manufacturers? The Important Role of Economic Efficiency in Laws Governing Children’s Products I believe bad things do sometimes happen to good people. What is the economic effect of assigning these costs to manufacturers by default? Unfortunately, this invariable result is not economically efficient and will have the effect of a tax on the children’s market. In other words, the economic incentive to participate in markets will shrivel as manufacturer returns on investment decline because of legal risks (costs) they cannot control. This is basic stuff, folks – the reduced economic incentive causes market participants to withdraw, just as high taxes cause people to stop taking risks (trading). Ronald Coase addressed this subject in two articles that led to his Nobel Prize. In a 1937 paper on the nature of the firm , Coase articulated what became known as the Coase Theorem which holds that if trade in an externality is possible (in this case, childhood injuries) and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. Translated into English and applied to the facts here, Coase theorized that it would not matter which party was responsible to pay the costs of an injury (victim or tortfeasor) if there was no cost to bargaining between the parties. This of course is not the case in the real world. Coase returned to the subject in a 1960 article entitled “ The Problem of Social Cost ” and explored the role of regulations in achieving economic efficiency when economic activity creates social costs. This eminently readable article is a foundation stone of modern legal theory. Considering the social costs of human activity (such as pollution or injuries from the use of children’s products), Coase concluded that efficient allocation of resources would be achieved regardless of allocation of rights relating to social costs (responsibility to pay those costs) provided that trading can be conducted without transaction costs. In other words, in an efficient market, economic factors (resources) will always be put to their highest and best use through allocation of resources and bargaining. Through bargaining in an efficient market, the party with the most productive use of economic factors will ultimately possess the resources, thus ensuring compensation for social costs regardless of who has been assigned legal rights. Coase cites numerous examples (including torts) in making this point. Coase notes the symmetry of these disputes in his analysis. When cattle overrun crops causing economic losses, there would be no damage without the cattle, and likewise no damage without the crops! Causation is not black-and-white to an economist interested in efficient outcomes. As he notes, a smoothly operating pricing system ensures that “the fall in the value of production due to the harmful effects would be a cost for both parties.” Nevertheless, Coase recognized that there ARE transaction costs in the real world (e.g., legal expenses, bargaining holdouts, etc.). These costs of altering and recombining rights allocated by the legal system can interfere with the ability to bargain and thus prevent the efficient allocation of resources in the market. He argued therefore that regulations are justified to the extent they allocate rights to the most efficient risk-bearer. Regulations can supersede market transactions by imposing the most efficient outcome. This is presumably the underpinning of President Obama’s call for more federal regulation. According to him, this will be good for us.  Coase might demur, noting that it all depends on the facts as we shall see below. Coase was realistic in his assessment of the inherent dangers of regulation: “But the governmental machine is not itself costless. It can, in fact, on occasion be extremely costly. Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that the restrictive and zoning regulations, made by a fallible administration subject to political pressures and operating without any competitive check, will necessarily always be those which increase the efficiency with which the economic system operates. Furthermore, such general regulations which must apply to a wide variety of cases will be enforced in some cases in which they are clearly inappropriate. . . . It is my belief that economists, and policy-makers generally, have tended to over-estimate the advantages that come from government regulation.” Coase’s solution: perform a cost-benefit analysis to make sure that regulations increase economic output (the all-in costs must be less than the all-in benefits when reduced to dollars). We encounter situations regularly in which the party causing a legal nuisance does not bear the consequential costs. For instance, a home remodeler does not have to pay compensation to neighbors for noise and debris that may adversely affect them. He may feel a social obligation to give them freshly-baked cookies but is under no legal obligation to do so. This is one of many legalized nuisances. Why is this the legal rule? The allocation of rights takes into account that as a society, we want to encourage investment and capital improvements. The small cost of dealing with these inconveniences is considered a cost we all should bear in exchange for the benefits received from the economic activity. This rule does not apply to exceptional cases of nuisance where the costs outweigh the benefits. Not every instance of damage is remediable under our legal system for good reason. Coase cites a fascinating real world example of this rule carried to a surprising extreme: under traditional English law, railroads are protected from liability for fires caused by sparks from their engines. Coase devotes considerable ink to prove that this legal rule creates an efficient allocation of resources (a positive effect for society) notwithstanding that there are “winners” and “losers”. This result would be very difficult to achieve through bargaining. Clearly a railroad would have a very difficult time working out a deal with every landowner along its lines as a precondition to laying down track. Importantly, Coase points out that the opposite rule (where the railroad must pay for the fires its engines cause) does much more than just transfer liability. It also shifts incentives to everyone’s detriment. A farmer along the track now can gamble with the railroad’s money – he can get a market price from market buyers if he can harvest his crops or from the railroad if there is a fire. The farmer’s return is thus guaranteed, the incentive to take care is removed, and he will be rewarded for planting crops likely to be burned. This alternative rule’s transfer of costs to the railroad will simultaneously reduce tje potential reward for constructing tracks and likely result in fewer train lines, reducing the broadly-distributed economic benefits that come with the expansion of the rail system. In other words, shifting liability in this case makes everyone along the train line poorer. Coase notes that “nuisances” are not always against our interest: “[Pigou] is wrong when he describes these actions as ‘anti-social’. They may or may not be. It is necessary to weigh the harm against the good that will result. NOTHING COULD BE MORE ‘ANTI-SOCIAL’ THAN TO OPPOSE ANY ACTION WHICH CAUSES ANY HARM TO ANYONE.” [Emphasis added] CPSC, are you listening? Placing the cost for nuisances on the producers’ shoulders may be well-intentioned but it is not necessarily the right result because it does not provide any incentive to consumers to take steps to prevent injury. “A tax system which was confined to a tax on the producer for damage caused would tend to lead to unduly high costs being incurred for the prevention of damage.”  The CPSC’s tendency to blame products via recalls and bans is the equivalent of a tax in this case. The “unduly high costs” leads to a reduction or suspension of economic activity. We can observe this in the children’s market over the past three years – the agency and Congress have both received considerable testimony on this topic (and seemingly ignored it). Coase won the Nobel Prize for pointing out that regulators often neglect to look at the full economic picture and thus fail to achieve optimal social results. It goes without saying that the regulators may nevertheless achieve optimal newspaper headlines. Conclusion Why is it inefficient to invariably push costs to manufacturers for injuries associated with children’s products? As Prof. Coase notes, in a raucous marketplace, transaction costs can distort the allocation of resources. In this case, the prospect of liability and uncontrollable losses are a high transaction cost that affects the efficient allocation of resources by trade. Coase posits that a cost-benefit analysis must be performed to make sure that efficiency is achieved. The rule for such analyses is quite clear – the all-in cost of the regulation must be less than the all-in economic benefits achieved. The best way to understand the formula in this case is to look at all marginal children’s recalls as a class. Let’s agree that there actually are some “substantial” product hazards out there and exclude them from our analysis.  [Manufacturers are in the best position to evaluate and prevent "substantial" hazards on behalf of consumers.]  We must also assess all the money spent as a result of CPSC action as a group. It does not matter who spends the money – we want to tote up all the costs and lay them off against all the benefits. The benefits are easy to calculate – there is an economic value to a life and also to injuries. This type of analysis is not only common, it is a requirement of federal law (as a result of Coase’s work outlined above). The government has tables of these values . Likewise, the costs are pretty easy to tote up: out of pocket costs for the recall, replacement of inventory, damage to reputation and brand, legal and regulatory costs, lost jobs, reduced investment, etc. In the case of accidents or other uncontrollable factors leading to injury, the CPSC’s calculus is defective. It is quite telling that the regulators are not interested in my point that no victims have been identified. Lead-in-substrate victims – NONE. Phthalates victims – NONE. The ledger on the benefits side is undocumented, vague and untested, but the regulators’ indifference suggests that they place an almost infinite value on injury or even the possibility of injury. On the cost side, the regulator also seems to largely ignore the impact on markets. As noted by Coase, the regulators are not subject to competitive pressures so they can easily overlook these costs. The math does not add up, and as a result, their decisions inevitably will choke the market. The CPSC acts as though not subject to the laws of economics . The legislative fix for this misguided regulatory effort is clear – mandate economic analyses as a justification for any CPSC regulation. It is also necessary to restore (actually, to mandate the use of) risk assessment by the CPSC. Risk is all about cost allocation and cost management. By removing the ability to assess risk, Congress essentially removed the wiring necessary for the CPSC to make an intelligent assessment of the economics of their decisions. While the CPSIA was clearly written and passed into law in anger, enough time has passed to expect cooler heads to prevail. Congress, it’s time to act!

View original post here:
CPSIA – Do Accidents Happen?

« Previous Page — Next Page »