CPSIA – CPSC Says "Ahhh, Don’t Worry About It!"

What me worry?!

In a TV piece called “Mom Outraged Over Lead in Baby’s Toy” (watch the video here), a Georgia mother found “an ominous warning” on a toy drum she purchased for her 16 month old from Toys R Us (one of the toughest retailers on legal compliance and quality control, btw). The label read: “Warning: contains lead. May be harmful if eaten or chewed. May generate dust containing lead.”

Uh-oh.

And I was wondering why anyone would buy a drum for a 16 month old . . . .

Mom was not happy: “Even if it’s just a little bit of lead, I think lead in anything for a child is just insane.”

When consulted, the CPSC assured her that it didn’t mean anything. It’s all about a California law that requires labels for lead levels that have nothing to do with safety. Scott Wolfson, who can really turn a phrase, intoned: “We respect California law, but parents should know that the safety of their children is not necessarily at risk if they see that label.”

This is so rich on so many levels.

First, the CPSC is prohibited from assessing risk under the CPSIA. How is it that their spokesman is allowed to assess risk? I thought Congress decides what’s risky now. The CPSC can’t be trusted, right? As usual, particularly when Mr. Wolfson is involved, the CPSC’s position is whatever is best for THEM. To heck with you. For purposes of this story, they magically regained the ability to assess risk.

Let’s review – as a matter of law, the CPSC’s job is to enforce the standards. They are literally prohibited from considering whether compliant products pose a risk. They are just measurers now, the “cop on the beat”, determining whether products are inside the circle or outside the circle but never whether the circle is in the right place. So how can they fashion a judgment that lesser levels of lead aren’t risky? The best they can say is that Congress didn’t apparently think those lead levels deserved attention.

I am thinking of Sargeant Schultz from “Hogan’s Heroes” . . . .

Second, the CPSIA is loaded with superfluous labels. The philosophy of warning consumers through labels pasted over labels is central to the precautionary principle that drove this law. How Mr. Wolfson can advise consumers to ignore a warning label without blushing is beyond me.

I believe the reason they try this stuff is because they think we’re so stupid that we won’t notice. Or that we’re so docile we won’t say anything. In any event, it hardly matters because they sure aren’t going to listen to us.

Third, this situation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what I have been saying for three years – that lead labels are a tacit ban. I have long resisted lead labels on any of our products. [Please NOTE - this is only happens under technical application of these stupid rules (gotcha's), such as labels for rocks, light bulbs, coated electrical cords, etc., and only on educational products.] If you put a label like the Georgia label on your product, it will die and you will have to drop it. Plain and simple – listen to the Georgia Mom. She’s normal and has some common sense – if the company is warning you about lead, don’t ask any questions, just don’t use the product. Why else would they be warning you? Duh.

A tacit ban.

So the Illinois law and the California law that require these labels are not only violations of Constitutional protection of interstate commerce, but they are also preempted by federal law. The States are not allowed to ban products that are permitted to be sold by Federal law – they are preempted from taking that step. When you put a label on a product that causes consumers to not buy the product, you destroy the economic viability of the product, thereby killing it. This is a tacit ban, a ban in as many words. It is illegal.

Scott Wolfson apparently doesn’t see the problem. Consumers should know that this label isn’t serious, he says. I assume he thinks consumers should know that the other labels they should know are serious. If they have any questions, perhaps they should call him. He knows-it-all.

Or maybe Moms everywhere should get better at reading Scott’s mind. That’s the ticket. Fuggedaboutit.

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSC Says "Ahhh, Don’t Worry About It!"

CPSIA – Why Does The Press Push Bad Ideas?

Last week, Justin Pritchard of the Associated Press again pressed the point that glassware with lead in the enamel should be recalled. He expressed shock at the “stunning” news that the CPSC reconsidered its view that the glasses are subject to the noxious lead regulations of the CPSIA.

Why did Mr. Pritchard find this outcome “stunning”? After all, in response to a question about the risks involved in the glasses, Pritchard had this to say in a TV interview: “The [lead and cadmium] levels are low in the sense of . . . no one is going to touch this glass, put their hand to their mouth and fall ill. This is a low level over time concern.” If the glasses are a low risk, why would he expect a federal regulator to waste time or resources on them?

Even more remarkably, Pritchard knows that the McDonalds Shrek glasses were found to be non-toxic by the CPSC. He broke the McDonalds story. The Shrek glasses present precisely the same “issue”. He also knows lead is only restricted in children’s products and that enamel coatings containing lead are permitted explicitly in the law (16 CFR 1303.2(b)(1)). There is no evidence that the presence of lead in the enamel has ever injured anyone. Ever.

So why is Pritchard continuing to push a story that he knows is defective? This puts it kindly. Let’s rule out that he is seeking a Pulitzer or has an ill-motive. Why would he do this?

Of course, we know there is a bias in reporting and in investigating that favors reporting “bad news”. Good news is not really considered news at all (except on the sports page). The media’s incentive is to publish terrifying stories – it sells papers and banner ads, and it’s natural for Congress to push legislation to save us from poorly understood threats as an extension of this trend. But something else is at play, it turns out.

This subject is analyzed in an interesting article by Jonah Lehrer in this week’s New Yorker magazine entitled “The Truth Wears Off”. Lehrer tries to explain why replication of scientific studies tends to show declining results over time. This is quite unexpected given that scientific studies are subject to peer reviews and are often published by periodicals with their own high standards of review. Lehrer notes that in small studies, weird results can show up (such as a 1930′s study which claimed that one Duke University student had ESP but later retesting revealed the student’s rapidly diminishing extrasensory powers . . .). In larger pools of data, results revert to a mean (this is called “funneling”). However even statistical significance doesn’t explain the phenomenon. Lehrer shows that we only get to see certain slices of data. Most data won’t be published because it’s not interesting or doesn’t confirm prejudices.

Put into a CPSIA context, Lehrer implicitly argues that media won’t write a story announcing that lead-in-enamel on your glassware is safe. Nor that you were always fine and your children weren’t in danger. Nor that there have been few injuries from lead in any children’s products. Nor that the few known injuries in the context of the large volume of products in use is actually a GOOD result. Nor that there are no identified victims of “phthalate poisoning” or that incidents of cadmium poisoning in American children are virtually unknown. The excuse – it’s not “newsworthy”. What’s the reality?

The reality is that we are exposed to a very imbalanced set of data. Quoting Michael Jennions, a biologist at the Australian National University, Lehrer argues that “the tendency of scientists and scientific journals [is] to prefer positive data over null results, which is what happens when no effect is found.” If the null set (the “everything’s fine” news) doesn’t get reported, what does? Says Richard Palmer, a biologist at the University of Alberta, “We cannot escape the troubling conclusion that some – perhaps many – cherished generalities are at best exaggerated in their biological significance and at worst a collective illusion nurtured by strong a-priori beliefs often repeated.”

The same mantra over and over? The words “Rachel Weintraub” suddenly pop into my mind.

Lehrer continues: “[T]he problem seems to be one of subtle omissions and unconscious misperceptions, as researchers struggle to make sense of their results. Stephen Jay Gould referred to this as the ‘shoehorning’ process.” Referring to studies in Asia that consistently confirm that acupuncture is effective, and studies in the West that show much poorer results, “Palmer notes, this wide discrepancy suggests that scientists find ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis, disregarding what they don’t want to see. Our beliefs are a form of blindness.”

Or to quote Robert Adler, anecdotes aren’t evidence.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University who once published a study entitled “Why Most Published Research Findings are False”, calls the phenomenon “significance chasing” where scientists play with numbers trying to find “anything that seems worthy”. In a news context, this is the same as Pritchard fingering the Super Hero glasses on the grounds that there is lead in the enamel even though he knows the Shrek glasses were safe. Maybe these other glasses are a problem?! Jeff Plungis of Bloomberg published an article on lead in Christmas light wires on December 8th because he apparently thought it was “interesting” and not well-known. Same thing.

Ioannidis says “It feels good to validate a hypothesis. It feels even better when you’ve got a financial interest in the idea or your career depends on it. And that’s why even after a claim has been systematically disproved . . .you still see some stubborn researchers citing the first few studies that show a strong effect. They really want to believe that it’s true.” [Emphasis added]

Lehrer’s article is a great read, I recommend it to you.

So you can stop scratching your head. Pritchard and Plungis, Adler and Tenenbaum, Waxman and Schakowsky, Weintraub and Green, will all continue to beat the same drum. They know they’re right . . . they just can’t prove it. And they will continue to repeat themselves in spite of the facts of this case:

• There are (virtually) no known victims.
• The impact of the law cannot be measured.
• The nexus between lead in children’s products and purported injury to children is not proven. This means that the inclusion in the law of so many formerly unregulated categories of goods is absolutely unjustified.
• The benefits of prophylactic testing has been disproved by the passage of time – the last 29 months.
• The law targets small business and lets big business off the hook. Even since passage of the CPSIA, it is clear from data that big business are responsible for headline recalls.

I guess the media keeps on publishing these stories because it’s human nature. Unfortunately, many jobs and many futures have been damaged in the service of a human weakness. I like to think we can rise about such limitations. It is in the hands of the CPSC and Congress to solve this problem.

Let’s hope they do their job . . . sometime really soon.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Why Does The Press Push Bad Ideas?

CPSIA – Governmental Biases On Display at CPSC

802 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 8 days left until Election Day.

The WSJ published a short article about the psychology of governments called Studying the Biases of Bureaucrats (subtitled “Five Ways Regulators Think Wrong”). The application of psychology to economic decisions has produced a few Nobel Prizes – the implications of psychology on decision-making is well-known and generally accepted.

See if you recognize the Democrats who run the CPSC in some of these bureaucratic decision-making foibles:

“. . . [P]sychologists have shown that we systematically overestimate how much we understand about the causes and mechanisms of things we half understand. The Swedish health economist Hans Rosling once gave students a list of five pairs of countries and asked which nation in each pair had the higher infant-mortality rate. The students got 1.8 right out of 5. Mr. Rosling noted that if he gave the test to chimpanzees they would get 2.5 right. So his students’ problem was not ignorance, but that they knew with confidence things that were false.” [Emphasis added]

My comment: Is the author suggesting the election of chimpanzees to the CPSC Commission? Hmmm, you must admit it’s a creative suggestion. . . .

“The issue of action bias is better known in England as the “dangerous dogs act,” after a previous government, confronted with a couple of cases in which dogs injured or killed people, felt the need to bring in a major piece of clumsy and bureaucratic legislation that worked poorly. . . . It takes unusual courage for a regulator to stand up and say ‘something must not be done,’ lest ‘something’ makes the problem worse.” [Emphasis added]

My comment: This hypothetical regulator does not work at the CPSC. The aversion of the current Democratic CPSC leadership to not regulating is continually reinforced. Consider for instance, the CPSC’s willingness to make a mockery of protecting the public against harm in the definition of “Children’s Products”. In that recent master stroke, the Commission approved a rule that says that the musical instruments marketed to schools (even exclusively) will be unregulated (even if made entirely of “dangerous” brass) if the instruments are full-sized (a so-called general use item) BUT will fully regulate kid-sized instruments. Big instruments made of brass apparently do not deserve their regulatory attention but little ones do, even if BOTH are used exclusively by kids. Big instruments won’t poison kids but little ones will, apparently.

Spineless or just plain stupid – you make the call!

“Motivated reasoning means that we tend to believe what it is convenient for us to believe. If you run an organization called, say, the Asteroid Retargeting Group for Humanity (ARGH) and you are worried about potential cuts to your budget, we should not be surprised to find you overreacting to every space rock that passes by. Regulators rarely argue for deregulation.“

My comment: Ho-hum, has anyone EVER seen this at the CPSC? Since the WSJ metaphor relates to rocks, I would note that we must warn consumers that the rocks in our rock kits may contain lead which might be harmful if swallowed. We do NOT have to warn people that our rocks ALSO contain rocks – yet another reason to not to eat them. We also don’t warn consumers to not eat our fossils because it destroys the fossil record – but we do warn them about lead in fossils. Nice!

It’s so fun to contribute to making a mockery of safety! I find it gratifying (not).

“The focusing illusion partly stems from the fact that people tend to see the benefits of a policy but not the hidden costs. As French theorist Frédéric Bastiat argued, it’s a fallacy to think that breaking a window creates work, because while the glazier’s gain of work is visible, the tailor’s loss of work caused by the window-owner’s loss of money—and consequent decision to delay purchase of a coat—is not. Recent history is full of government interventions with this characteristic.”

My comment: Invisible costs are the true cancer of the CPSIA. I recently voted NO on a market expansion of our company into a product class that I felt would attract WAY too much regulatory attention at the maniacal CPSC these days. Why take a chance? With the government almost promoting the destruction of our industry and its supply chain (see today’s WSJ for yet another scare tactic by Inez Tenenbaum), there is just no reward for moving into certain markets. And how will the regulators measure this effect? There is no evidence of our choice to NOT enter a market. That must mean it never happened . . . right??? Perhaps that’s what they think. They only believe bodies (that are still warm and only if they are stacked high – and even then, we know that “anecdotes are not evidence”). No bodies are evident when you opt out.

Case closed?

“‘Affect heuristic’ is a fancy name for a pretty obvious concept, namely that we discount the drawbacks of things we are emotionally in favor of. For example, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill certainly killed about 1,300 birds, maybe a few more. Wind turbines in America kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds every year, generally of rarer species, such as eagles. Yet wind companies receive neither the enforcement, nor the opprobrium, that oil companies do.”

My comment: Or here’s an example from the CPSIA world: deaths from lead number just one, and injuries number just three (all alleged, none verified) over ll years (CPSC data) but deaths and injuries from swimming pools are greater on an average DAY. So what’s our national obsession, at least of the Democrats? Lead. Makes a lot of sense. Not.

The CPSC – it’s a psychologist’s dream . . . but it’s our nightmare.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Governmental Biases On Display at CPSC

CPSIA – What Are We Trying Achieve?

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

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

Sean, boy are you right!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CPSIA – 60 Minutes Transcript of "Phthalates: Are They Safe?"

The transcript of yesterday’s segment on phthalates may be found at this link.

Read more here:
CPSIA – 60 Minutes Transcript of "Phthalates: Are They Safe?"

CPSIA – Extra 60 Minutes Video Content on Phthalates

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Read more here:
CPSIA – Extra 60 Minutes Video Content on Phthalates

CPSIA – 60 Minutes 5-23-10 Segment Video "Phthalates: Are They Safe?"

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Read more here:
CPSIA – 60 Minutes 5-23-10 Segment Video "Phthalates: Are They Safe?"

CPSIA – The CPSC Sweats Out A Stay

The CPSC is on the hot seat over its testing and certification stay . . . again. As you may recall, the CPSC first postponed mandatory testing just ahead of its scheduled implementation in February 2009. On January 30, 2009, the Commission acted to push out the effectiveness of the CPSIA testing and certification requirement by one year, to February 10, 2010. Then-Acting Chairman Nancy Nord noted that the stay “provides breathing space to get in place some of the rules needed for implementation”.

Well, that didn’t work, so on December 17, 2009, the Commission again pushed out the testing and certification effectiveness date to February 10, 2011. This early action was done in recognition of industry’s need for to plan for changes in requirements. Nonetheless, Dems on the Commission bemoaned the need to extend the stay:

Robert Adler: “While I had originally hoped the Commission and the marketplace would both be prepared for the lifting of this stay of enforcement, after thorough consultation with CPSC staff and stakeholders in both industry and the public health community, I believe an extension of another six months is necessary to permit market adjustments, especially with respect to the testing and certification by the suppliers of components. I respectfully disagree, however, with my colleagues who have chosen to extend the stay beyond August 10, 2010. While there will be some disruption in the marketplace no matter which date is chosen, no hard evidence has been brought to my attention that would require an even longer extension of this stay than two years from the passage of this landmark legislation. I recognize that others feel differently.”

Perhaps Mr. Adler has uncovered some “hard evidence” by now. Scroll forward six months and things aren’t going the CPSC’s way. While the Commission may have thought it reserved enough time for everyone to “adjust” to the testing requirements, in fact things are getting worse. Rules are piling higher and higher, and are still being issued and changed. Many people don’t feel the rules are survivable. Dan Marshall of the HTA testified at the April 29th hearing that his organization sees the CPSEA (the Waxman Amendment) as their only chance to survive the lifting of the testing stay. [My opinion - the Waxman Amendment won't help the HTA at all.]

More recently, the HTA sent a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee stating: “Finally, we hope to settle any confusion regarding our intent in endorsing the CPSEA. We endorsed it as our only available alternative. We truly believe that many of our members will be forced out of business after February 10, 2011 without meaningful, clear reform provided by your committee. . . . You hold the livelihoods of hundreds of small businesses in your hands.“

Ouch.

Not surprisingly, there is mounting background pressure on the CPSC to push out the testing stay for another year. Nevertheless, I surmise that Dems on the Commission would rather eat dirt (40 ppm lead) than take this step. They invested a lot of political capital in the last stay extension, and despite the promulgation of (literally) reams of regulations, still haven’t put in place a workable regulatory scheme yet. Retailers are telling the CPSC privately that without prompt relief from the CPSC or Congress, they are going to have to start turning the screws on their suppliers as though the stay won’t be lifted. Hmmm.

The pressure is building, building. It doesn’t help that Waxman and his supporters won’t budge an inch on their proposed CPSIA amendment. By moving in a pack led by Waxman, the Dems are collectively taking full ownership of the awful consequences of the law.

And what if the Commission capitulates and extends the stay? That’s good for the industry and the HTA, certainly, but it’s political suicide for the Dems. They face a real Hobson’s Choice. If the stay is extended, it will be taken as an admission that the CPSIA simply cannot be implemented. That would really stick it to Mr. Waxman, patron of the Dems on the Commission. After all, if the law isn’t “ready” for full implementation for FOUR YEARS, it’s logical to conclude the CPSIA won’t ever work, that it was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. [Where have I heard that before???] If the Commission declines to extend the stay, manufacturers and retailers will light the world afire over the pain and losses being foisted needlessly on them. HTA members and other small businesses will start to close down. Ugly. The choice is lose-lose.

The stakes are even higher for the Dems, if you take into account Mr. Waxman’s REAL baby, TSCA reform. The Dems have a big target in mind, the “reform” of chemical regulation in this country. Put simply, they want to roll out CPSIA-style regulation to all things chemical, including plastics and all mixtures of chemicals. This scares a lot of people, given the permi-chaos dogging CPSIA precautionary regulation of only two substances (lead and phthalates). Arguably, the CPSIA was just a trial balloon for TSCA reform. Ramp up the CPSIA by 30,000 times and you have TSCA reform. If the Dems give an inch on the CPSIA, they fear their hopes for TSCA reform will go down the drain. The children’s product industry is caught in the middle of a historic fight over how we Americans regulate ourselves.

If you are frustrated by the stalemate over the Waxman Amendment, I think you need to keep an eye on the testing stay. Every day that passes, the pressure mounts on the Waxmanis and the Commission. What’s the right thing to do? They sweat and they sweat . . . while we roast.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The CPSC Sweats Out A Stay

CPSIA – The Myth of the "Common Toy Box"

If you wonder why Waxman and his staff won’t discuss a change to the age limits in the CPSIA, it’s their fear of the “common toy box”. They claim that unless a wide net is spread over children’s products, small children could be “affected” by the toys of older children in the same home.

It is absolutely outrageous that an urban myth could send thousands of businesses down the river and cost literally billions in compliance and regulatory expenses. While common toy boxes are not themselves a myth, their ability to cause bodily injury is certainly fantastic.

I know it’s downright prissy to discuss numbers in this era of junk science but, ahem, where’s the evidence that so-called “common toy boxes” cause injuries? I am not aware of a SINGLE incident where this occurred. If you restrict your inquiry to lead injuries, the phobia du jour, I am even more certain that it has NEVER HAPPENED.

And what if it did happen? I submit that we cannot and SHOULD NOT conclude that anything is “unsafe” based on a single incident. Have you never heard of “accidents”? The concept of safety administration is inherently economic in nature, so the risk and cost of controlling that risk must be considered before making any choices. The risk of injury from “common toy boxes” needs to be evaluated for the probability of occurrence, and for whether the cost to remediate is greater than the benefit to be gained.

Is that really so outlandish? Am I some sort of corporate “tool” for daring to suggest this? If so, I challenge you to counter my argument that getting out of bed in the morning involves weighing risks. If you were to equally weight all known risks, without considering the probability of incurring the costs of those risks, you would never leave your bed – too risky. In fact, you would probably sleep below your bed in the basement, which provides better protection against meteorites. We intuit this every day without difficulty and bear these low risks because we believe we can control them.

Absurd example? Is the over-weighting of a single injury or death from lead any different?

Our company has been in business for almost 26 years. I have previously acknowledged that we have had one recall, for a grand total of 130 pieces (out of perhaps 1 billion pieces sold). These items were sold to 14 customers, and we called each one and got back more than 100% of what we shipped out. The world was made safe again for mankind. That is it for us. I submit that our safety record is not an accident. If that’s true (and it is), what is America gaining by the excessive costs we will bear under this law, or worse, the dramatic liability risks we now face? All because Waxman’s staff can’t get past the “common toy box”.

The sham of the justification of the “common toy box” is further exposed by presence in a child’s life of so many other sources of the very same risk that this law seeks to eradicate.

• Will it rid the world of lead? Certainly not, it’s in our food, potable water and air. The media is awash in articles about lead in drinking fountains in schools. Lead pipes have been conveying our water for years. And good luck getting rid of brass in the home. And “deadly” rhinestones are in every girl’s closet already.
• Will it prevent lead-in-substrate from entering their world? No, products outside children’s products remain unregulated, including products intended for the home but not specifically intended for kids (e.g., pens and housewares). Even dog toys will continue to be unregulated. Do you think children handle dog toys? Come on!
• Will the law even eliminate lead-in-paint from a child’s life? No – it’s smeared all over your cars. Will your kid touch your car more often than he/she sucks on his bike’s tire valve? One word – duh.

The justification of the “common toy box” is a negotiating ploy. It’s an artifice to permit the utter change of our safety system from risk-based to a European-style set if precautionary and prescriptive rules. The idea sells and no one gives it much thought, which is all that matters. As last week’s Senate Appropriations Committee hearing demonstrated, this new era permits members of Congress to justify their existence with long rants on their basic and poorly-researched fears (such as antimony on the nose of a Zhu Zhu Pet). Anything goes when you are afraid of a toy box.

Don’t buy into the logic of the precautionary principle people. If you do, you will end in the “common rubbish bin” with the rest of the victim businesses.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The Myth of the "Common Toy Box"

CPSIA – How Important is Testing After All?

Let’s zoom up to 40,000 feet and look down on the CPSIA mess. If Martians were watching this affair unfold before their uncomprehending eyes, what would they think?

In 2007/8, a large number of toy recalls and jewelry recalls dominated the newspaper headlines. A closer examination of these recalls shows that they were largely restricted to lead-in-paint and lead-in-jewelry, but few people bothered with the details – hysteria was a lot easier. Sold on a rationale that it is “impossible” to know if something’s safe without testing it, Congress wrote up legislation to require prophylactic testing of all children’s products, a mind-boggling array of products ranging from pens to t-shirts to science kits to ATVs to shoes.

Being entirely unable to anticipate any problems with this brilliant construct, Congress was shocked to find that the CPSC couldn’t implement these requirements without crushing small businesses (among others). A finger-pointing contest broke out, where Congress insisted that the CPSC had the power to implement the new law with “common sense” (read, make up law to make the whiners go away) and the CPSC pushed back that it lacked regulatory flexibility under the CPSIA and legally was forbidden to assess risk. Standoff!

Of late, a weary and perhaps more sensitive CPSC is now taking a more conciliatory stance, expressing an interest, in the words of Ms. Tenenbaum, “to get it right”. Aside from soliciting feedback from stakeholders, the agency is clearly trying to draft rules permitting small companies to reduce their compliance costs. The net effect: testing is ebbing away. Now with component testing, it is possible for companies to get out of testing altogether for many of their products. Other rules, like flexible rules on rules on sampling and testing frequency, among other rules being crafted, are further reducing the testing burden. [I strongly support this movement by the CPSC, let there be no doubt.]

But I am confused now. Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America famously taught us that “Businesses’ assertion that they’re having to test products they know are safe is absurd. You only know if a product is safe if it’s been tested.” [Emphasis added.] Yet the CPSC seems to be pulling away from Ms. Weintraub and her wisdom on testing. Is testing critical or not? Is safety achievable in other ways (perhaps various elements in combination)? If testing isn’t so essential after all, what’s really going on here?

I have a theory to share on this question: The recent movement by the CPSC on testing is tacit acknowledgement of our argument that there is more to safety administration than testing. Furthermore, the ebbing of testing requirements is a further acknowledgement that we are not facing a massive public health crisis in children’s products – and never were. Yes, that means poison zippers, brass bushings, ATVs, pens and bikes really is a joke, as you thought. So why the big fuss, why isn’t everyone linking arms and singing Kumbaya, if there is acceptance that a lesser standard will be sufficient to ensure safety?

It’s simple – the issues go beyond this law, and that’s why the Dems in Congress will budge. In fact, we are pawns in a bigger game, namely the battle to establish the precautionary principle in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This is Mr. Waxman’s dream legislation, his effort to rein in the chemical industry. The folks behind the TSCA reform legislation are deeply suspicious of chemicals in our lives and want to regulate them on a precautionary basis, not entirely unlike the way we approve drugs. It’s the “fear of everything” all over again but BIGGER.

How does this tie back to the CPSIA? We are the test case, kids. The CPSIA was the first skirmish in the TSCA war. The two substances regulated on a precautionary basis under the CPSIA, lead and phthalates, either make or break the case on TSCA. If the Dems give in to our demands and acknowledge that their precautionary scheme didn’t work, that it ate up the regulatory agency (now nicknamed the Children’s Product Safety Commission), then how can they win approval of TSCA?

This is why the Dems are so resistant to rational change of this ridiculous law. This is why they won’t listen to reason or consider facts. The facts are contrary to their larger goals, so they need to ignore them or deny them. In this context, it is better to send us down the river than deal with our issues. Although their tough testing scheme is being unraveled, they won’t admit that it means that the crisis never was; without a crisis to fix, the entire logic of the CPSIA and their precautionary trial balloon fizzles. The Dems must insist that the crisis is still severe and that there is only one solution, the precautionary principle. Otherwise, they don’t get TSCA.

[Side note: There was a "telltale" in the Waxman amendment to the CPSIA last week on TSCA. A big issue in TSCA reform legislation is the possible use of "junk science" to justify removing valuable chemicals from use in our country. With all the self-appointed consumer representatives clamoring for a chemical-free world, there is good reason to fear manipulative use of science under TSCA to disrupt the chemical industry. It's no different than the misuse of lead toxicity and antimony health effects by consumer groups to attack toys and other children's products under the CPSIA. Some people have been insisting on a "peer-review" standard for these scientific challenges to chemical use - which Mr. Waxman fear may hobble his precautionary principle law. This term is used in Section 101 (b) in the CPSIA to make it more difficult to get exemptions - but was stripped out of the law in Mr. Waxman's unilateral amendment. See my first blogpost on his amendment. His "generous act" in removing this ridiculous stumbling block wasn't a signal of increasing sympathy with our problems. No, in fact, it was simply aimed at resolving one of his problems with TSCA.]

I have no easy answers for how this ends. If you feel your anger welling up, you’re not alone. Actually, I think the regulators are sick of it, too. The CPSIA has truly consumed the CPSC and made the daily affairs of that agency some kind of purgatory for the staff there. I can’t imagine it’s much fun being a Commissioner either. Frankly, the biggest shame of all is that by Congress (the Dems, really) insisting on an unworkable scheme for reasons unrelated to children’s product safety, the agency has been rendered ineffective, bureaucratic and stuck in gridlock. The CPSC’s essential role has been mooted. That’s bad for everybody – in a perfect world, the agency is free to do its job and look for real safety problems to solve. Instead, it has to spend its time figuring out whether water slides are primarily intended for children and the like. What a tragic waste.

In the wake of last week’s demise of the Waxman amendment and the extension of the lead content Stay, we must retain our focus and continue to push hard for a change in the law. The facts are piling up and the excuses for inaction are fading. It’s time for action – for the good of consumers, for the good of industry and for the good of the CPSC.

Read more here:
CPSIA – How Important is Testing After All?

Next Page »