CPSIA – It’s Raining Paper . . . .

I have previously made the point (again and again) that the paperwork involved in complying or even understanding the CPSIA has escalated to absurd and previously unimaginable levels. When I recently posted my latest video blog, I noted that MY count of the pages of rules implementing the CPSIA was over 1800. [The CPSC has not promulgated a list of these documents and some of them may not even be publicly available, so that's just my count - no one knows the true number.]

Since then, the paper shower has continued unabated. Here are a few new shovel fulls from your CPSC:

Definition of “Children’s Products”: 52 pages

Standard Operating Procedure for Determination of Phthalates: 8 pages

Proposed Rule: Conditions and Requirements for Testing Component Parts of Consumer Products: 69 pages

Draft Notice of Proposed Rule -Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database: 172 pages

Proposed Rule: Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification: 160 pages

Staff Briefing Package CPSIA Certification & Testing, April 1, 2010: 110 pages

Total pages: 571

In addition, public meetings of the Commission on Wednesday morning and all day on Thursday this week will feature major topics of great importance to those companies affected by the CPSIA. These will be Must Watch hearings. Hope you aren’t too busy running your business to stop what you are doing and tune in all day.

There cannot be any rational expectation by the CPSC that businesses interested in the development of CPSIA implementation rules could POSSIBLY keep up with this torrent of paper and hearings. The impracticality of participating in this process means that it is a railroad job, plain and simple. It is intentional, too – overwhelming the regulated community is one way to silence the critics.

Despite the absence of any credible evidence that such a massive expansion in safety rules is justified by injury statistics or any form of safety data from marketplace, the CPSC is in the process of gleefully converting the safety rules governing children’s products into something approaching the Internal Revenue Code in complexity. The compliance burden on businesses will be overwhelming – or simply impossible in a practical sense. As important as Ms. Tenenbaum’s instant death rules are, running our operating businesses will take priority for most people.

With this inundation of complexity, the point of capitulation is upon us. Add to this the known risk of mega penalties. Remember, this CPSC has warned businesses not to dare resist it. The consequences of resistance can be interpolated from the Daiso penalty – $2.05 million for recalls of 698 pieces in five recalls of 19 products over two years without a single reported injury. [Imagine what Mattel or RC2 would pay today under this enforcement scheme. I wonder if my calculator has enough digits for that number . . . .] Ms. Tenenbaum has demonstrated that she will have no reluctance to sic the U.S. Attorney on us for our transgressions without regard to actual market impact, striving to impose “a very high hurdle to jump over to ever get back in the import business again”.

This approach to regulation is an irresponsible act by our government and very damaging to the market. It’s naive and shortsighted, but in the “Father Knows Best” world wrought by Mr. Obama, it’s useless to attempt to reason with the regulators. The promised “dialogue” with the regulated community has been exposed as a sham. It’s hard not to conclude that businesses have now been deemed evil by nature. Otherwise, how do you explain the paper blizzard? Sadly, none of this holds any prospect of making kids safer.

I hate the feeling of shouting in a vacuum. I am not sure what will trigger a revolt against this insanity. Does another work assignment of 600 pages anger you . . . yet? The mountain is at about 2500 pages to read now, and there’s more to come. What outrages will have to take place before you resist?

This may be too urgent to wait for November. Think about how you will deal with penalties for complying with rules you have never read, cannot possibly read and may not even understand. This regulator has already acted to put a minor player out of business. Are you next?

It’s time to act with a sense of urgency. Your customers, your employees, your stakeholders are counting on you.

Read more here:
CPSIA – It’s Raining Paper . . . .

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

CSPIA – Treatment of Resale Goods under the Waxman Amendment

The new Waxman Amendment provides an arcane and inadequate resolution of the longstanding complaints about the treatment of resale shops and resale goods under the CPSIA. The amendment adds a new provision, Section 101(b)(3), to address the resale issues.

This short provision has a lot going on:

a. It only applies to lead restrictions. The exceptions for resale goods do NOT apply to the phthalates ban. This means that used toys are unlikely to reappear in resale shops. It also means that anything possibly affected by the phthalates ban, including certain clothing and childcare articles, will be dangerous to sell in resale shops.

The legal niceties are of little import here – these low revenue stores won’t go near trouble. Will they know what’s okay to sell and what’s not? Probably not. Of course, the CPSC could always put out a new guidance brochure for them – something to look forward to!

Arguably, the inability of the Dems to give a clean waiver to the resale industry means that the resale exemption grants little relief in practical effect. That’s my belief, at least. If resale shops do not feel comfortable that the responsible administration of their businesses will keep them out of harm’s way (including being free of the possibility of bad publicity), they are likely to stay out of the market for children’s goods entirely. Resale stores don’t have legal departments . . . . [Who knew?!]

b. The definition of a “used children’s product” is quite interesting:

“The term ‘used children’s product’ means a children’s product that was obtained by the seller for use and not for the purpose of resale or was obtained by the seller from a person who obtained such children’s product for use and not for the purpose of resale.”

This obtuse language is intended to forbid the bulk resale of merchandise by inventory liquidators while permitting charity or consignment sales of children’s product. “For profit” resale shops will also be snagged on this language.

The origins of this language is presumably Commissioner Bob Adler’s odd Solomonic recommendation that charity shops be allowed to sell used clothing but not “for profit” resale shops.

The new definition is confusing because of the peculiar word “obtain”. There is no question that under this provision, you cannot “obtain” children’s products for the purpose of resale. Does this restriction apply to donated goods? Probably not because the legislators presumably believe you don’t “obtain” a donation for a particular purpose. Of course, that’s a fiction – do you think the Salvation Army accepts donations of children’s products with no purpose in mind? Could this language be a backhanded way to approve the distribution of donated goods for free but not for a nominal price? Possibly.

Would this limitation apply to consignment sellers who never take title – do they actually “obtain” the goods? Consignment sales may be okay but no doubt some factual inquiry will be required, a nice case-by-case analytical process to keep the CPSC busy! Ebay resellers and “for profit” resale shops are almost certainly not given relief by this language. The Resale Roundup is not in danger . . . .

The asserted distinction between a reseller of donated goods (a so-called charity shop), a consignment store and a “for profit” resale shop is flimsy and patronizing, in my view, reflecting a patrician view of society and the needs of the “lower class”. As I have explained in the past, the issue should be about safety, not compassion for the impoverished. Is it morally permissible to give dangerous products to children because they are poor? Please, don’t insult my intelligence. If the goods are safe, sell them – and if they’re not, throw them away. It has nothing to do with “needy” kids. This is yet another case of Dem legislators being unwilling to take a reasonable stand on what is and what is NOT safe. They are apparently willing to sacrifice the resale industry to their lack of courage.

c. As if the foregoing didn’t prove that the bill’s authors live in La La Land, the definition of “used children’s product” has several exceptions, namely children’s metal jewelry, painted children’s toys, children’s products comprised “primarily” of vinyl and any other children’s product later identified for this list by the Commission. I guess the charity shops are supposed to keep their eyes peeled.

So apparently the idea is that resale shops can get back into the children’s product business except . . . except . . . except . . . . The simple relief these shops need has been denied in favor of new uber complexity. To the intended beneficiaries of this “relief”, complexity alone will make the law unintelligible or at least unmanageable. Despite the “good intentions”, the effect of the relief will be moot – in other words, nada.

You should be OUTRAGED about this situation. The very FACT that this Dem-controlled Congress has been sucking its thumb over this issue for TWO YEARS, through two cold and snowy winters, is a national embarrassment. Frankly, it more shameful than that. When the Dems finally worked themselves into action, this is the best they could do?

The persistent inability of the Dem Congress to act sensibly on this issue is both demoralizing and illuminating. This situation is the Dems’ handiwork and yet, the disruption of this market affects the neediest Americans, and among them, the youngest and most vulnerable. Quite a departure from Democratic Party traditions. Not only is access to kids’ warm winter clothing impacted, but so many other important products are embargoed, from baby items to educational products to whathaveyou. And even though the needed goods are plentiful, the CPSIA made it prohibitive to offer them for sale at a low price. Too bad, Poor People!

The poor don’t deserve to live in the anti-economy just because the Dems have a phobia. The fact that the Dems can’t apparently empathize with people who really need their support is so shocking.

I hope you won’t support this bill regardless of its impact on you unless it gives real relief to those in need. If we are really a community, we must DEMAND true relief for the resale market. It’s time to take a stand against a stubborn, morally-numb, self-justifying Dem Congress.

Read more here:
CSPIA – Treatment of Resale Goods under the Waxman Amendment

CPSIA – The New Waxman Amendment Analyzed

On Friday, House Democrats began to circulate a discussion draft of a new amendment to the CPSIA. This draft follows the abortive effort by Chairman Henry Waxman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to slip a CPSIA amendment to his own liking into omnibus legislation last December. [That effort was disclosed and discussed in this space from December 11-16, 2009.] The crash-and-burn of the first Waxman amendment created a new dynamic in CPSIA negotiations as it was the first (tacit) public acknowledgement by Waxman that the law was flawed AND that the CPSC could not fix it by itself. The failure of the secret amendment effort also showed that Mr. Waxman isn’t invincible. So, a step in the right direction.

Recently, in the wake of the January 15th recommendations of the CPSC Commission, the Dems reignited the simmering discussion of CPSIA changes by engaging various stakeholders on how the first Waxman amendment could be improved. This process was constrained by the Dems’ insistence that comments be in the form of changes to the first Waxman amendment, thereby eliminating anything too “blue sky”. Consistent with the recent (and short-lived) post-Massachusetts Dem preference for bipartisan “cooperation”, the Dems actually asked House Republicans what they thought. Let’s just say the Republicans see some basic flaws in the law. . . . Anyhow, the Republicans having provided their feedback, largely rebuffed, this draft emerged.

The procedural process forward is unclear. The standard (and appropriate) process would be a hearing followed by a “mark-up”. The Senate also has something to say on this legislation (their position is not clear although Senate Dems more readily acknowledge the need to fix the law). It remains to be seen whether Waxman will allow a real hearing on the CPSIA to take place. Dissenting views are not well-tolerated in this era of Congress. Anyhow, the Dems are asking stakeholders to send comments by this Friday.

I intend to discuss this proposed legislation in several essays. In this essay, I would like to discuss global issues. I will return to discuss the specifics of the law, notably the treatment of Section 101(b), in later posts.

A few thoughts, generally:

a. The amendment dodges most of the serious issues in the law. My list of changes is comprehensive, and the draft legislation avoids most of it. This amendment makes no effort to respond broadly to the well-documented flaws in the law. No one can argue anymore that the CPSC can fix these problems. The legislation reads (to me) like the position of someone almost completely in denial.

Let’s face FACTS – the CPSIA was passed on August 14, 2008. It is now March 14, 2010. That’s a long time. The CPSC has blown countless deadlines, and has failed to resolve MANY critical issues so far, like the phthalates test standard, the 15 month rule and so on. They are working around the clock. This thing is not going to fix itself, and the agency’s future is literally at stake.

The Dems refusal to face up to these issues is a betrayal of you, your customers and your marketplace.

b. You might ask – WHY are the Dems avoiding all of these serious issues? Are they deaf?

I think the answer is that they are hardly deaf but have little interest in opposing viewpoints. The CPSIA is their legacy and as such, no amendment will be blessed by them if it admits a defect in their original thinking or their asserted Perfect Legislative Process. An “acceptable” amendment must therefore pay homage to the original law and its structure. By working within the law’s original structure, the Dems ensure that the basic defects will survive amendment – and the consequences to your business, your market and to the regulators themselves will remain devastating.

[The Dems' "legacy" also survives if they can delay change long enough to make it impractical or impossible to unwind all rules and regulations implementing the misguided CPSIA. After all, we business people have no choice but to upend our businesses to follow these rules, and would incur more damaging expense to change our processes a second time. There seems little doubt that the forces behind the CPSIA want the law's infrastructure to be impossible to untangle by future Congresses or CPSC Commissions.]

The Dems’ homage to the original law is evident in several places. For instance, the concept of a “low volume manufacturer” is designed to provide a very (VERY) limited opportunity to craft an exception to the original testing requirements. Even so, the language clearly states that exceptions benefiting the LVMs must still “assure certification based on compliance with the relevant consumer product safety standards.” [Emphasis added.] In other words, no exception will be given to the little guys from the law’s basic premise that manufacturers must prove compliance before sale. [More on LVMs later.]

The proposed rules on the so-called “functional purpose” exception also kowtows to the law’s concept that everyone must ask for permission to be excused from lead requirements. In other words, the Dems reject the notion that the law can be narrowed rationally and appropriately without a burdensome bureaucratic process. Even action by the agency on its own initiative will be a major ordeal. The Dems know (because they have been told) that the exception process is effectively a closed door for all but the most well-capitalized companies. You may interpret the legislative language as the Dems’ response to this small business issue.

Another good example of the Dems’ sticking with the original law’s structure is the use of the word “practicable” in the Section 101(b) changes. This change is the doorway for the ATV’rs and book publishers to argue for exceptions to the lead-in-substrate standards. I am told that this word was chosen because of a Supreme Court decision (that I have not read) holding that “practicable” incorporates concepts of economics. Ah, I see. In other words, this language is a way to make the law look just like the original one, but still provide a faint hope for business people that they can somehow wriggle out of ridiculous lead-in-substrate restrictions. It’s obscure, to say the least, but leaves the original legislative structure in place – the Dems’ principal goal.

c. The new amendment ADDS more complexity to an already blindingly complex law. I have written about complexity numerous times, and recently posted a video explaining the frustrating challenge of trying to understand this law fully. Complexity in this case does not reflect the difficulty in creating a safe market for children’s products. Actually, that issue is long-resolved. The complexity stems entirely from a defective legal structure and its consequences. If the Dems insist on keeping the original CPSIA structure in place, you must get used to complexity spawning more complexity in your business life. It will only get worse.

This is what Big Government looks like. Hope you like it.

d. CRITICAL ISSUES are absent and unaddressed in this legislation. Examples:

• Risk Assessment by the CPSC and/or the Commission.
• Changes in age limits for the lead standards and phthalates ban.
• Narrowing of the scope of “Children’s Product” to eliminate many categories of products unthinkingly pulled into this law by its overly broad language.
• True reform to protect small businesses.
• Tracking labels relief.

And so on. As noted above, to take these steps would mean acknowledging that the original law was grossly defective. The Dems would rather eat lead-free glass than admit their career achievement was fundamentally defective. Ironically, the Republicans have no such reluctance, despite voting for the original law. The sad prospect is that unless the Dems have a change of outlook (soon), real reform may need to wait for a change in gavel (bye, bye, Mr. Waxman).

Hence my excitement over the prospect of voting in November.

More to follow.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The New Waxman Amendment Analyzed

CPSIA – Letter to CPSC Re Continuation of Testing and Certification Stay

Dear Chairman Tenenbaum, Commissioners Adler, Moore, Nord and Northup:

I am writing to strongly urge the Commission to vote to extend the CPSIA testing and certification stay (the “Stay”) originally implemented on January 30, 2009 and due to expire on February 10, 2010. The Stay should be continued for at least one year PAST issuance of final implementing rules and regulations relating to testing frequency, sampling, component testing, re-testing requirements, testing standards for phthalates and ASTM F963, enforcement policies and certification of sufficient laboratories to handle the market’s volume requirements.

The Stay has served its purpose well. When originally adopted in January, the Commission intended to create a pause to allow the issuance of implementing rules and further permit market adjustment to those new rules. The Stay was needed to avoid confusion and chaos in the marketplace. Unfortunately, the task of issuing implementing rules to fully realize the goals of the Stay has not been completed. The incomplete state of the full range of testing rules and related activities (like test lab certification) has prevented full implementation of testing and certification in the marketplace. While many companies are testing aggressively, as the much-reduced toy recall rates attest, the market is simply not ready for full implementation. No one knows what full implementation even means.

Many critical tasks remain incomplete:

• The “15 Month Rule” was not issued when due on November 14th. The stakeholder feedback from this week’s workshop on the “15 Month Rule” has not been received, much less reviewed or digested.
• Comments on the “15 Month Rule” are due on January 11. These comments have not received yet.
• The CPSC has not even solicited comments on the lifting of the Stay from stakeholders.
• Component testing rules have not been promulgated, despite calls by Commissioner Nord in her January 30th Statement on the Stay.
• The CPSC has not issued its phthalates test standard.
• The CPSC has not certified any testing laboratories for the phthalates test standard yet.
  The CPSC has not certified labs for ASTM F963 testing yet.
• The CPSC admits that it has not certified enough labs to handle a full burden of testing for many product classes or safety tests.
• The CPSC acknowledges that fixed testing costs are creating a serious burden on small businesses.
• The CPSC has not defined “children’s product”, “toy”, “play” or “childcare article” yet.
• The CPSC acknowledges that many companies have not acted to fill market gaps like component testing because the rules are not final (or even drafted in this case).
• The CPSC is on its third enforcement policy on lead and lead-in-paint.

Other serious issues relate to the practical impact of the rules on the marketplace. First, the current rules are complex and disorganized, having been released in several places and formats. Even video testimony includes unique statements of agency policy. Some “rules” contradict other rules. Many important industry questions posed to the CPSC remain unanswered months or more than a year later. The task of mastering the vast array of FAQs, letter rulings, rules, exemption requests and so on baffles even the largest companies. Notably, Mattel officials complained of this very problem in a recent meeting with Commissioner Adler and speculated on the practical impossibility of compliance by small companies. The timing of the lifting of the Stay in February will clearly affect small businesses adversely.

Second, manufacturers and their supply chains need time to adjust to new rules. Many of these new rules are not even drafted yet, much less ready to be issued in final form after public comment. This delay is not the fault of the manufacturing community . . . but the consequences could be quite significant for manufacturers if the Stay is lifted suddenly. Most legislative programs that involve a significant change in process or requirements include time for adjustment by manufacturers. It is not unusual for supply chains to receive two or even three years to shift to the new requirements. For instance, U.S. Customs started working on its new “10+2” program in June 2004, issued final rules in November 2008, has been running seminars nationwide for more than a year, and will only fully implement 14 months later in late January 2010 (compliance date). A reasonable lifting of the Stay requires at least a 12 month lead-time from implementation of the last component of the testing rules. Furthermore, to ensure successful implementation, the agency will need to make considerable investments in supply chain education and training during that 12 month lead-time. The agency must also make sure that the final rules are clear, simplified and understandable. Anything less will expose most businesses to the constant risk of conflict with 51 different regulators – regardless of their corporate efforts to comply.

Some suggestions have been made to lift the Stay in piecemeal fashion. We strongly urge the Commission to lift the Stay in the “right way” all at once after offering the regulated community a clean, complete, coherent package of rules, regulations and certifications sufficient to put manufacturers in an adequate position to successfully and efficiently comply with the new rules. Rolling out testing rules one-by-one with a similar ramp-up of compliance will only ensure that no one understands the rules for as long as possible.

The confusion engendered by a piecemeal implementation of the new testing rules will not only constitute a form of regulatory water torture, but will certainly cause regular conflicts between (a) the CPSC and its regulated community, (b) consumer groups, regulators and regulated companies, (c) State Attorneys General and regulated companies, and (d) regulated companies and their dealers/retailers. By lifting the Stay under these uncertain conditions, the Commission would be risking complete market chaos. The misery suffered by regulated companies and industries would be matched by equal misery at the CPSC. Under these circumstances, the agency would face a steady stream of crises caused by testing controversies and confusion without end. I fear that a drip-drip-drip implementation of the testing and certification requirements will render the agency crippled with overwork, inefficiencies and wear-and-tear.

These poor outcomes are avoidable by dynamic Commission action to delay the lifting of the Stay.

Manufacturers of children’s products are good law-abiding citizens who want to follow the law. Until the CPSIA rules are clearly written and implemented, following the law is an impossible task. Please take bold action to support the lawful activities of the regulated community by promptly continuing the Stay for one year past the issuance of final implementing rules and regulations relating to testing frequency, sampling, component testing, re-testing requirements, testing standards for phthalates and ASTM F963, enforcement policies and certification of sufficient laboratories to handle the market’s volume requirements.

Thank you for consideration of my views on this important topic.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.

Chairman
Alliance for Children’s Product Safety

Read more here:
CPSIA – Letter to CPSC Re Continuation of Testing and Certification Stay

CPSIA – Consumer Groups are Grasping at Straws

Last week, in their usual pre-Xmas slanderfest, the full range of consumer groups unleashed their annual list of bad and dangerous toy lists on a pandering media. The pickin’s were slim this year, but that didn’t stop them.

I have heard from friends outside the toy industry who expressed horror and disbelief at these widely-publicized attacks. Toy industry insiders are used to it, frankly. Actually, speaking candidly, some of these annual efforts are useful and appreciated. I think that bad products (generally reflecting poor judgment, nothing more venal than that) have been usefully exposed by these groups in the past. However, of late the consumer groups have been obsessed by “toxics” – pushing the notion that toys are poisonous, rather than simply irresponsibly-designed. I think the reason is simple – the media and reactive politicians respond to this accusation, so why give up a “good thing”? You have to wonder if their goal is to simply make toys safer. Their attacks are remain more vicious than in the past and much more pointed.

The consumer group continue to package the idea that consumers do not realize that “no government agency tests toys before they are put on the shelves.” This self-declared “fact” is an essential justification of their “precautionary principle” – that is, we need an activist government approving everything before you get your hands on it. President Obama’s assertion on Late Night with David Letterman that we need a lot more government these days is right in line with the precautionary principle. Others call this movement the Nanny State.

The precautionary principle holds that no risk is too small to address – in advance. Thus, the neurosis underlying the assertion that Americans think the government must be “testing” toys before they are sold is the same as Consumer Union’s David Pittle’s admission in the TSCP hearing (beginning at about 90 minutes in the video) that he is “nervous” when he buys a toy (not sure what or whom to trust), and ergo, his rules for how manufacturers run their businesses must be imposed. Mr. Pittle’s demands seem designed to relieve his anxieties, rather than improve safety. [He might contend that it is one and the same but I disagree.] Inciting terror through various means, the consumer groups place a real emphasis on how consumers FEEL and whether products and their manufacturers have earned consumer confidence (an emotional standard), not whether (objectively or actually), the products are actually safe.

Perhaps your mother told you once that it is hard to control how others feel – you can only control what you do and how you do it. Maybe she should be running Congress . . . .

In any event, the number of offending children’s products uncovered this year by the consumer groups is rather meagre. As previously noted, Center for Environmental Health (CEH) drummed up seven items after six weeks of testing on 250 items. The CEH rogue’s gallery featured NO soluble lead in toys, but did feature one pair of shoes with lead in the soles . . . a pair of sandals with lead in the insole . . . a trinket with a bad connector link . . . a poncho with lead in the vinyl material, etc. And now the PIRGs have joined in the fun. The annual Trouble in Toyland report was issued this week by national PIRG and the equally hyperbolic Illinois PIRG issued its own “Chemical Compliance: Testing for Toxics in Children’s Products” report. [I am only focusing on lead and phthalates in these reports.] The PIRG “bounty”: a zipper “pull” and a yellow cow with lead-in-paint, one piece of lead jewelry, and two toys with phthalates (one an “unidentified” phthalate that might not be illegal, and the other just slightly over the limit). Illinois PIRG found only a small handful of violative products: only six of 87 products tested positive for violative lead levels using XRF guns, winnowing down to three items when tested by an independent lab.

Illinois PIRG failed to find lead or phthalates in the items featured in this TV segment. Unfortunately, that makes bad TV, so the head of Illinois PIRG lowered the standard to create something new to worry about (watch from 1:00 for 30 seconds in the video): “Most of the toys PIRG bought at target came up clean. But three of the toys had small amounts of lead — MUCH LESS THAN the current safety standard but enough for the gun to detect. ‘Really, children shouldn’t be exposed to lead at all,’ said [Brian] Imus.” [Emphasis added]

An implication of the 2009 reports is that the onerous new CPSIA lead standards are simply not tough enough. For instance, PIRG says “Regulations should simply ban lead except at trace amounts (90-100 ppm), whether in paint, coatings or any toys, jewelry or other products for use by children under 12 years old.” Where did this come from? Some ideas:

• They are laying the groundwork for the August 2011 determination by the CPSC about implementing a 100 ppm lead limit. To do so, the agency must conclude that it is “technologically feasible” as defined in the CPSIA.
• The groups are desperate to make their work seem relevant and constructive.
• They are confused or want to confuse consumers about HOW lead harms children, ignoring, covering up or blurring important distinctions between bio-available lead and inaccessible lead.

The latter point is so critical to understand. Lead can only harm a child if it gets into the bloodstream. Notably, lead is present throughout the environment (lead is found in at least 40 ppm concentrations in dirt, unless you are referring to the Obama’s vegetable garden which has lead in concentrations of 93 ppm). Lead is in our food, drink and air, so kids consume it all the time. Apparently, lead in certain amounts must not be a problem, or else we would all have suffered reduced IQs (no comment in my case). The lead that should concern us is soluble lead, as in lead-in-paint and in jewelry, because it can easily get into the bloodstream. In any event, PIRG knows that toys and children’s products aren’t the problem. In their report, they cite a 2005 article (“Lead Exposure in Children: Prevention, Detection and Management,” Pediatrics, 1036-1048 (October 2005)) which makes clear that the problem with childhood blood lead levels is in lead-in-paint used in housing. There is NO mention anywhere that I can find where academic studies blame national blood lead levels on toys, etc., and likewise, I find all credit for lowering blood lead levels is given to efforts to rid the world of lead-in-paint in housing. Period.

So why does PIRG and its brethren continue to flog the notion that lead in all manifestations is dangerous? And why are they now saying that ANY lead, even below the draconian levels in the current law, is dangerous to children’s health?

Questions worth pondering.

Finally, not content to blur the lines on lead, PIRG also recommends that the phthalates ban be extended: “CPSC should ban phthalates in toys and other products intended for children under five and work with the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that toys labeled ‘phthalate-free’ do not contain phthalates.” So apparently PIRG wants ALL phthalates eliminated from toys, no matter the absence of science behind their new manic fear. Even more importantly, they apparently concede that the blanket ban on six phthalates for toys intended for children 6-12 is excessive and damaging. At least that’s a positive contribution!

So another Xmas toy bashing seems to be behind us. The pseudo-science underlying the consumer groups’ attacks on children’s products was again exposed, as was the basic integrity and safety of the marketplace. Does that do us any good? That remains to be seen. Perhaps the leadership at the CPSC will tire of this relentless war (which is eroding their professional reputations) and do something to get Congress to fix a truly defective and damaging law. Let’s hope so.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Consumer Groups are Grasping at Straws

CPSIA – Does the CPSIA Cause Birth Defects?!

BBC News published yet another study of phthalates this week in which stress hormones were fingered as a source of birth defects. In particular, the study focused on those ailments which obsess the concerned citizens of America, the all-too-common “cryptorchidism” (the testes fail to drop) and “hypospadias” (the urinary tract is not aligned). Who among us doesn’t know TEN PEOPLE with each of these problems?!

Here’s a few quotes to chew on:

“Dr Mandy Drake, from Edinburgh University’s centre for cardiovascular science, said: “What the study shows is that it is not simply a case of one factor in isolation contributing to abnormalities in male development but a combination of both lifestyle and environmental factors, which together have a greater impact.” [Come on, guys, you don't expect us to believe that, do you?!]

“‘In most studies reproductive disorders are only seen after abnormally high levels of exposure to chemicals, which most humans are not exposed to. Our study suggests that additional exposure to stress, which is a part of everyday life, may increase the risk of these disorders and could mean that lower levels of chemicals are required to cause adverse affects.’ The study looked at male fetal development in rats. It found that while exposure to the chemical compound dibutyl phthalate, found in products including glues, paints and plastics, had some effects on reproductive development, this was significantly increased with simultaneous exposure to stress hormones.”

In other words, phthalates may be much less of factor than stress in causing birth defects. What might induce stress while in utero? Well, how about scare tactics by politicians, media and consumer groups? How about their never-ending daily assault on the dangers of modern life? The regular appearance of articles questioning all the basics in our life, the accusations of hidden dangers lurking everywhere. In particular, for a pregnant woman (emitting the stress hormones to the in utero baby), the worrisome impression that the trusted baby products she bought from the trusted ocmpanies she has known for so long . . . can’t be trusted. That’s some serious stress.

And a likely source of such stress hormones today is the CPSIA. This study then lends credence to the proposition that the greatest threat to the health of our nation is Congress! The stress induced by the confidence-sapping CPSIA is apparently causing birth defects, and now we have a study to prove it.

It’s time to sue Congress for this tort, and to pass legislation outlawing these stress hormone-inducing scare tactics. While we’re at it, we might as well change the CPSIA, too. For good for future babies, we have to finish the job once and for all!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Does the CPSIA Cause Birth Defects?!

CPSIA – Do-Gooder Congress Ends The Green Toy Movement

Read more here:
CPSIA – Do-Gooder Congress Ends The Green Toy Movement

CPSIA – My Answer to Sean Oberle on Resale Shops and Tenenbaum

Some of you may have been following the recent debate in the Product Safety Letter (PSL) on the CPSC’s noxious Resale Roundup program. A wave of unfavorable media coverage has dogged the new CPSC initiative, noting the risk of high fines and the unwelcome intrusion of federal regulators into an innocent American ritual, the garage sale. A highly-publicized Fox News piece apparently triggered a response by CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum in PSL on October 3 entitled “Garage Sales and CPSC — Sorting the Facts from the Myths“. In this piece, Ms. Tenenbaum promised not to fine garage sale operators, and chose to emphasize the CPSC’s noble goal of ending the resale of recalled products.

Next, Rob Wilson of Challenge and Fun, Inc., a Massachusetts-based toy company, published an Op-Ed in PSL on October 9 entitled “Consumer Confusion Comes From CPSC Guidance, Not the Media” in which he noted that the fear Ms. Tenenbaum sought to calm came not from media reports but instead from CPSC policy. In particular, he pointed out the impractical and confusing advice given in the CPSC’s own CPSC Handbook for Resale Stores and Product Resellers. Mr. Wilson closed with the following observation: “Chairman Tenenbaum vowed at her Senate confirmation hearing to bring a common sense approach to CPSIA implementation. We are still waiting for signs of common sense from the agency regarding CPSIA.” Ah, that “common sense” thing again!

Sean Oberle, owner, publisher and editor of PSL, replied to Mr. Wilson in his own publication on October 13 in an editorial entitled “Clarity and Accuracy — CPSC, the Media and Garage Sales” in which he defended Ms. Tenenbaum on the grounds that her limited statement did not constitute a comprehensive summary of her feelings or actions on the CPSIA. It’s a remarkable piece, I hope you will read it. [In his editorial, Mr. Oberle makes the following observation: "a quick search of the blogosphere and other new-media sites finds more pieces running the gamut from mild warnings to doomsday predictions" - hmmm.] Interestingly, Mr. Oberle stresses his “neutrality” and “defense of accuracy and clarity” THREE TIMES. Draw your own conclusions.

Well, I sent Mr. Oberle MY Op-Ed reply to the debate he not only published but contributed to. Suffice it to say, he turned me down. I am publishing the Op-Ed here for your review and consideration. I would be interested in your thoughts.

I think it is critical to reflect on this rebuff and to delve into its deeper meaning. [My ego can take it, btw.] The Product Safety Letter (along with BNA) was cited by John “Gib” Mullan (Assistant Executive Director, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, CPSC) as the definitive source for information on safety issues at last February’s ICPHSO meeting. An august publication, apparently. Yet, what does a stilted debate in PSL’s pages signify? Only Mr. Oberle can say for sure. My article asks Ms. Tenenbaum to be accountable for the actions of the CPSC in implementing the defective CPSIA. Mr. Oberle has already publicly stated his neutrality on agency issues several times. [Quoting from Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."] What’s going on here?

The American way of life is frankly dependent on our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech. The foundation of the visionary American system of a free media is its INDEPENDENCE. What if the media organs we depend on lose their independence? What if fear of retribution or a possible chilling in access to information challenges editorial decisions? In thinking about the end of the debate about the CPSC’s Resale Roundup in PSL, these questions resonate. I hope this is not the Obama Revolution we have all been hearing about.

My Op-Ed for your reading pleasure:

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Answer to Sean Oberle on Resale Shops and Tenenbaum

CPSIA – CPSC Recalls 40 Inflatable Bats for Phthalates

I know I am crazy, over the edge, worrying about a CPSC so hellbent on enforcing the awful CPSIA that it will chill the market and kill products and companies that are essential to those markets. I know I have a reputation . . . .

Well, consider this recall today: a California company agreed to a recall of 130 pieces of several toys, including an inflatable bat stenciled with “Home Run” on it. The bat was offensive because it violated the phthalates standard. A recall of 130 pieces spread over several toys, means that they must be recalling less than 130 pieces of the inflatable bat. So I called the company (Daiso Japan) and asked them exactly how many bats were involved – the answer? Forty. Feeling safer already?

This is a rather strict standard . . . and completely disproportionate to any conceivable risk. Phthalates do not “ooze” from toys – they must be mouthed and chewed. The CPSC knows this – their own CHAP examined this question and their own scientists participated in “chew tests”. So, in choosing to expend resources on a recall of 40 pieces of an inflatable bat that is clearly not intended or likely to be mouthed, the CPSC is imposing a strict liability standard with no apparent threshhold for recalls – one unit is enough to justify this public humiliation.

This is asinine, of course. How do you expect the business community to react to this development? Well, for one thing, they will overreact. I anticipate that our customers will demand that we prove that everything we make is phthalate-free, toy or not. This means expensive tests to prove that we have not used an additive not found in nature. [It's an ADDITIVE - it will only be there if added.] The application of this rule by the marketplace to every product, whether or not subject to the ban, means that more of our items will lose marketshare simply because we cannot afford to test them to prove we were compliant. The cull of items will accelerate.

This turn in the market will dramatically increase our costs. At this point, we have seen cost increases in the range of 12-40%. Perhaps those surcharges will fall over time, but right now, that’s a pretty hefty chunk of lost profits. The impact will be lower revenues as products are dropped and volumes decline in the face of forced price increases. Price increases in a weak market is not a winning strategy.

Another factor will be fear. Companies will look at this development, connect the dots with the penalty-happy posture of this new CPSC, and realize that any misstep is subject to dramatic punishment. They will pull into their shell – or leave the market. This is called a “chilling effect”.

And what will be achieved? Recalls of less than 130 pieces is pointless from a safety standpoint. The presence of phthalates in a toy is not tantamount to devastating injury, even if banned. The CPSC used to tout its “enforcement discretion” but apparently has no intention of using it here. Even so, the use of phthalates in a baseball bat is hard to link to injury under any rational standards – baseball bats are not teethers. Ergo, there are no rational standards. “Common sense” at the CPSC is a sound bite only and a pathetic figment of the marketers’ imagination.

Enjoy! You can thank the Congressional Democrats for all the good this is bringing to your life.

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSC Recalls 40 Inflatable Bats for Phthalates

« Previous Page — Next Page »