CPSIA – Consumer Groups and the CPSIA

Walter Lippmann, founding editor of The New Republic and winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1964, once cited the components of wartime mythmaking as “the casual fact, the creative imagination, the will to believe, and out of these three elements, a counterfeit of reality.” Hmmm. He might have been talking about lead in children’s products. Mr. Lippmann explained: “Men respond as powerfully to fictions as they do to realities [and] in many cases they help to create the very fictions to which they respond.”

Last week, a number of interested stakeholders met with the staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to discuss what to do about the CPSIA. Do I need to explain why the situation is urgent? The list is long, and the victims are basically defenseless. Mass market companies are inconvenienced but not hobbled; small businesses are crushed, confused and scattering into other markets. Consumers, unaware that the federal government has meddled in an unprecedented way with a market upon which they depend, are oblivious to the threat posed by the weakening or departure of their suppliers. And the Dems just smile and tell us this is all for our own good. Don’t worry, they know what’s best!

Various stakeholders tried to explain the many ways this law has caused harm and the reasons why it is appropriate to loosen the noose around the business community’s neck. Scan my remarks, the HTA’s presentation or the words of the AAFA as an example, and you will see how high the stakes are.

No meeting on the CPSIA would be complete without consumer groups chiming in to defend this “perfect” regulatory scheme. In this case, Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America and the American Academy of Pediatrics all touted the triumph that is CPSIA. CU spent a fair amount of time asserting that the public database rules adequately protect manufacturers and that the perceived defects in the proposed database plan had already been addressed by the Commission. [See Nord's blog and Northup's blog on this topic.] What, me worry?! CU also noted that there WAS broad support for the CPSIA (back in 2008), as if that were sufficient justification to stick with a clearly defective law. This was nothing more than the Waxmanis’ argument that no further discussion is merited because of the Perfect Legislative Process. Ah, the infallible Congress, how could I forget?

My special friend Rachel Weintraub of CFA took the opportunity to reassure the gathered crowd that the law has done us all a lot of good. [She was careful to not put anything in writing. Given that limitation, I must work off my notes and apologize for any inaccuracies.] Her reasoning relied on the assertion that consumers “thought” that someone issued a “stamp of approval” for children’s products being sold in U.S. markets. This strikes me as “transference”, meaning that this may be how Rachel feels herself or how she feels we the general public OUGHT to feel. In any event, there are a lot of consumers out there, and I rather doubt Rachel is able to know how they all felt. She went on to assert that consumers lost faith int he regulatory system. Ditto. After recounting the many wondrous things the law has engendered, she asked that the law be given more “time to work”.

More time to work? To what end, to finish the job and put everyone out of business . . . other than CFA? OMG.

And then there is my personal favorite, the AAP through their Washington representative Cindy Pelligrini. Ms. Pelligrini has been making trouble over lead for many years. I first encountered her when the 2007 testimony she ghosted for Dr. Dana Best was used to justify the Illinois lead labeling law (see below). For last week’s meeting, the AAP submitted a position paper announcing its unwillingness to support any change to age limits, lead limits or even the consideration of risk by the CPSC. Why do you suppose the AAP cannot support the consideration of risk? Ms. Pelligrini explained in her oral remarks that the AAP felt consideration of risk would be too BURDENSOME ON THE AGENCY. What a heartbreaking scenario, the terrible burden! The AAP is so considerate to think of the quality of life of CPSC Commissioners.

The AAP was able to muster support for tightening the lead limits in the CPSIA to 40 ppm, however. Perish the thought of dropping the 100 ppm standard! When I questioned the process by which this position paper was created by the AAP, Ms. Pelligrini wrote me to explain that it is old news, derived from their January 21, 2009 letter to Henry Waxman. So, apparently, nothing has happened in the last 24 months nor any additional data developed to merit reconsidering their recommendations. I see.

Of course, I recognize that the metabolic impact of lead has not changed because of the development of injury statistics (or, more accurately, the development of no-injury statistics), and in this sense, I suppose, the AAP position need never change. On the other hand, I have previously addressed the issue of science being used as a bludgeon to “prove” preconceived notions. In my post of December 14, I discussed an article entitled “The Truth Wears Off”. It could have been about the story the AAP tells about lead.

Without going into the arguments about the falsity of the AAP’s claims (or at least their fatally misleading nature), I would like to draw your attention to the “detached from reality” position they take on lead limits. They want to establish a limit of 40 ppm for lead. Anyone remember that Mr. Obama’s vegetable garden at the White House was at 93 ppm? The AAP points to research they conducted with the U.S. Geological Survey to come up with this limit. In other words, it is their estimate (however faulty) of background lead “contamination” in our environment. [As if the natural presence of an atomic element constitutes "contamination".]

AAP’s suggested lead limit of 40 ppm is basically below the reliably measurable limit and imposes uncontrollable economic risks on manufacturers. By uncontrollable, I mean that the odds of finding a part or component with lead levels in excess of 40 ppm are pretty good in almost any manufacturing setting – given the disorder, irregularities and complexities of the real world, defects of this nature are not really preventable, at least in a prophylactic way. [This is different than saying anyone is likely to be injured, please note.] Even a Six Sigma company would find this a major challenge. Remember, if you find such a part or component, the entire lot becomes a liability and may have to be discarded, a total loss. The imposition of this kind of manufacturing risk will cause many market departures and other bad economic impacts. You will only have to discard one big lot to get the message – find something less regulated to do.

My word against hers, right? Well, perhaps not. My home state of Illinois is running a test on this point. Illinois has a new law that requires labeling toys (you know, a warning label that Scott Wolfson doesn’t think matters) if they have paint with lead over 40 ppm. Actually, since lead-in-paint is now illegal under federal law at 90 ppm, the Illinois law effectively requires labeling for paint on toys BETWEEN 40 and 90 ppm. Feel safer already? Not everyone does. See the coverage in the Akron Beacon-Journal on such labeling. The headlines of the article says it all: “Label on doll shoes made by Toys R Us subsidiary worries parents. Warning about lead is cause for concern. Company says product is safe, but some experts say children shouldn’t be exposed to even small levels of metal in toys.” The AAP thinks this would be a jolly good rule for the entire economy.

I could go on. [If you are bored, you are welcome to consult my response to the "no safe level of lead" argument in response to Bob Adler's attempt to "prove" this point.] In point of fact, the consumer groups are just trying to gum up the works. There are apparently still some members of Congress (I am not ready to name names) who are “true believers” and according to rumor, are ready to block any sensible effort to fix this law. I guess it’s tough for some people to admit a big screw-up. Keep this in mind the next time you hear the media blame Republicans for “gridlock”.

In any event, you should not feel particularly comfortable just because the Republicans are running the show in the House. The Republicans are in fact very aware of the issues and the details of the problems under the CPSIA and at the CPSC, and are motivated to do something about it. They have the votes and the intent to move something useful forward. However, the Senate is still controlled by populist Democrats who just seem deaf to reason, argument or data. As long as they (or even just one of them) stands in the way of putting this part of the economy back on track, we are stuck. Even with the grudging cooperation of Senate Democrats, we also need the White House to sign the law. And then there’s the persistent zealotry on the CPSC Commission. Many variables and risks remain.

Despite the odds and the death march aspect of this “war”, we must carry on. We must keep fighting, we must keep calling, we must keep protesting. The words of Ronald Reagan ring in my ears:

“I do not believe in a fate that will befall us no matter what we do. . . .

I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.”

We are the People, this is our country. We do not need to be held hostage by a small group of zealots. The task of taking back America did not end at the 2010 midterm elections. If the Dems will not help us, and if the consumer groups are going to be obstructionist to the very last, then we must fight and we must fight with vigor and intensity. No one is going save you . . . but you.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Consumer Groups and the CPSIA

CPSIA – In Defense of Lead

Perhaps you have been expecting it. After all the “heat” in this blog over the past year, finally, my defense of lead. Hope you’re happy now. . . .

Last Friday, Commissioner Bob Adler posted his long-awaited position paper on lead and related CPSIA issues. Weighing in at 21 pages and 89 footnotes, Mr. Adler’s paper includes a thorough recitation of facts as well as his recommendations about the law. Among other things, he recommends making the lead exemption process more flexible and allowing clothing to be sold through charity resale shops. He also left the door open to changes that would ease the economic burden of the CPSIA on small businesses and low-income consumers. I agree with all of these changes – but I also think many other and more extensive changes are needed, too. I do not agree with the basis of Mr. Adler’s reasoning, however, and that makes all the difference.

Mr. Adler devotes about half of his statement to a detailed analysis of lead safety, reciting many facts not in dispute. Unfortunately, he then leaps to familiar conclusions that we have seen in recent Commission meetings and which are also found in many of his written statements. He does signal some extremely limited flexibility on lead, more or less hewing to the line put forth by Central Casting.

Ironically, Mr. Adler’s statement sometimes leaves you wondering where he stands, since he seems so sympathetic to both sides. It is frustrating to not have a clear picture of how he really sees the world. I fail to find persuasive his argument that the lead rules are good for us when they lead to ridiculous results like the banning of brash bushings on toy cars. Mr. Adler himself noted in the Learning Curve hearing that the brass bushings pose NO risk to children at a hypothetical tipping point with blood lead levels (in other words, the toys were incontrovertibly safe) – and then voted to ban them because the law compelled it. This should trigger a sense of outrage in the Commissioner . . . but it doesn’t.

To me, as an ex-lawyer, the illogical results documented in the Learning Curve case are intolerable. It is proof of a defective law and a defective system. Banning acknowledged safe products is a SIGN of problems, not something to rejoice in. As you know, it costs money to toss away perfectly good product. It also costs a lot of money to employ CPSC staff and Commissioners to decide silly cases like the brass bushing case. Something’s quite wrong if we are celebrating a system so obviously broken.

i believe there are fundamental flaws in Mr. Adler’s views on lead which prompt him to make recommendations basically defending a broken, illogical and self-destructive legislative system. Let me start by stating what I considered to be incontrovertible facts:

• Lead is bad
• Lead can be dangerous to children
• Harming children is bad, and unacceptable if reasonably foreseeable.
• Lead poisoning in children is largely if not entirely the fault of lead house paint and leaded gasoline

Mr. Adler makes the latter point in his footnote 83: “Clothing is not a significant source of lead poisoning. Far and away the greatest source of lead poisoning is lead paint in older housing, lead-saturated soil from gasoline emanated over the years from automobile exhausts, and lead-saturated dust (both from paint and gasoline).” [Other citations omitted] It is important to remember that Mr. Adler KNOWS that blood lead level problems stem from house paint and the long term consequences of years of leaded gasoline use (particularly in the inner city).

Mr. Adler tries to prove that lead is bad – but that fact beyond dispute. He goes further and builds the case that there is no “safe” level of lead, providing citations. Thus established, he then seems to justify the legislation’s strict terms based on the logic that if science hasn’t identified a safe level for lead, every instance of lead is therefore dangerous: “We may have currently reached the outer limits of our ability to measure negative effects of exposure to small amounts of lead, but that does not mean that no adverse effects are occurring. It basically means that we do not know.” Scary stuff. . . but what does he really think?

It’s hard to tell. Notwithstanding his assertion that no level of lead is safe, Adler seems oddly reassured by the permitted levels set by Congress: “[Given] that lead remains ubiquitous and often unavoidable, policymakers who are fully aware of lead’s risks, have sought to determine some level of lead that would be acceptable – at least until new information becomes available.” And these all-knowing policymakers (Congress) set a retroactive scheme of rapidly declining permitted lead levels. In other words, what was considered “safe” (meaning legal) on February 9, 2009, was “unsafe” on February 10, 2009, and what was considered “safe” on February 10, 2009 became “unsafe” on August 14, 2009, and what was “safe” on August 14, 2009 promises to become “unsafe” on August 14, 2011. Mr. Adler analyzes retroactivity under the CPSIA in his statement and then endorses it. Huh?

I fail to grasp the logic of either Congress or Mr. Adler here. Is lead in substrate dangerous or is it not? Is there a safe level for lead or is there not? Is lead safe on one day, and not safe on the next day? If so, can someone explain the science of that safe/unsafe trigger to me? I believe Mr. Adler’s accommodative attitude toward the lead standards and retroactivity is best explained by politics than by any notions of safety or risk.

It is even harder to take Adler’s stern tones on lead seriously when you consider the volume of lead elsewhere in a child’s life. Will regulation of lead in substrate in children’s products have any material impact on blood lead levels? Can anyone prove that it will, or that the cost of getting rid of all the lead is worth the cost? Remember that we could redeploy the same money for more impactful projects, like eliminating high lead levels in drinking water in schools or remediating soil contaminated with lead. We have already covered the fact that Mr. Adler knows that blood lead levels are fundamentally tied to exposure to leaded house paint and contaminated soil. It is also well-known that cars are coated in lead paint, legally under our laws. Lead is also in our food chain, is found in nature – and enters our bodies every day. [For data on this topic, see "Eat My Dust".] By obsessing on children’s products in the face of these facts, Congress ensured that its new legislation would fail to deliver measurable results.

In essence, the slogan “no safe level for lead” connotes a risk-free condition. “Risk-free” is an unrealistic standard and FAR too expensive as public policy. Mr. Adler uses this formulation in his lengthy analysis of used clothing sales: “In sum, I cannot state with certainty that a “safety” threshold of, say, 1 µg/dL blood level change would never occur from zipper sucking. . . . The fact that I cannot say there is no risk is why I characterize the choice [between allowing and banning resale of used clothing] as between bad and worse.” [Emphasis added] Mr. Adler is not following a legal principle here, he is asserting one. This is the precautionary principle, the famous Nanny State being implemented before your very eyes.

It is difficult to diffuse an argument based on the elimination of all possible risk. If we wish to organize our society around the elimination of risk, rather than the management of risk, we are doomed. All of us, not just the children’s product industry. The sad truth is that no one in the Federal government can prove that the policies of the last 35 years on lead caused injury. Mr. Adler implicitly asserts that our inability to prove that it DIDN’T is enough justification to throw the old system out. This is a belief system, not science.

The fear of risk is fanned by the threat of undetectable dangers. Mr. Adler notes: “To say the effects [of lead on healthy children] are not directly observable is not to say that that they are minor.” He amplifies this point by implying a link to children’s products to lead injuries without any proof of a relationship: “[MRI] technology has permitted us to identify permanent damage in adults stemming from childhood lead exposures.” Exposure to what, precisely? ABC blocks or the soil next to an inner-city apartment building in the leaded gasoline era? Mr. Adler’s assertion that we just don’t know what the harm is dodges the real question – how do you know there is any harm resulting from THESE USES OF LEAD? No answer is supplied because no one can answer that question.

The Adler statement paints a pretty compelling picture and the 89 footnotes were presumably intended to add academic gravitas to his arguments. However, not all academics agree with Adler. Here are videos of the presentations of two Ph.D.s who specialize in risk assessment in children’s products and lead issues taking an opposite view: Richard Reiss of Exponent and Barbara Beck of Gradient. They both note that the dose makes the poison and that only through true risk assessment will a sensible safety system be possible.

A couple brief notes:

- Mr. Adler talks a lot about retroactivity in the CPSIA. At the end of the day, he comes down . . . get ready for it . . . in favor of retaining retroactivity, but also for the recommendation of the Commission to make the pending 100 ppm lead standard prospective. I am not commenting on his arguments other than to say that I think relaxation of this provision would bring considerable economic relief without any possibility of physical harm to anyone. That’s enough reasoning for me.

- In calling for change to the lead exemption process, Adler is apparently willing to support only “a modest expansion in the amount of discretion granted to the Commission”. I find this rather curious and unexplained – he only wants a little discretion. Why? Does he worry that the Commission can’t handle the responsibility for full discretion? Again, why? I wonder if greater powers suggested this very limited recommendation out of a lack of “trust”, namely trust of future Commissions not hand-picked by this Dem-dominated Congress. No matter the explanation, it is curious indeed to see a Commissioner ask Congress to extend his Commission limited discretion.

- Adler devotes considerable space to sale of children’s clothing at resale shops. He ultimately recommends that charity resale shops be allowed to sell children’s clothing (possibly subject to posted Proposition 65-like warnings, see footnote 88). Adler’s logic in this section is puzzling to me. Is Adler trying to defend children or defend the CPSIA? He concedes that clothing has no history of causing injury from lead but is apparently troubled that it cannot be proven that a child couldn’t be harmed by clothing. Incredibly, he resolves the dilemma by distinguishing between resales made by charity shops and by for-profit shops, leaving the latter out of his proposed exemption. So is he approving the sale of unsafe products by charity resale shops to poor people so they can stay warm? Or is he saying that the clothes are probably safe, but can’t be sold by for-profit stores for . . . what reason? If the clothing is safe to sell, sell it . . . and if it isn’t, don’t. WHO sells it shouldn’t matter. But apparently it does.

An aside: Mr. Adler uses some strong language to discuss those of us who have pushed back on this law: “As I have waded into the debate, I have encountered many thoughtful, sincere, and anguished concerns about the CPSIA. I have also heard numerous overheated arguments, scanned many bloviating blogs, and read great numbers of error-laden emails (and letters) commenting on the law.” For those of you who don’t know this SAT word, “bloviating” is defined as “[to] discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner” on dictionary.com. I wish our government officials would stick to the issues and avoid attacking the exercise of Free Speech by U.S. citizens. This is particularly the case here, since after a long fight, many of those bloviaters have been proven right. I don’t expect thanks, but I think this is out of line.

I could go on, but I won’t. Mr. Adler’s voice in the debate is an important one and I appreciate his efforts to set the record straight. I don’t agree with him and appreciate the opportunity to reply.

You be the judge!

Read more here:
CPSIA – In Defense of Lead

CPSIA – Nancy Nord Announces a Delay in the "15 Month Rule"

As hinted at in this space on Thursday, the CPSC is apparently going to delay the issuance of the so-called “15 Month Rule”. In Nancy Nord’s new blog, she provides the following important information:

“Periodic Testing – On a related issue, the CPSIA requires that we issue a rule setting out further testing requirements within 15 months of enactment (November, 2009). The agency will not meet that deadline in spite of best efforts to do so. This issue is extremely complex and we need additional input from the affected public before we give answers. The staff will hold workshops on December 10th and 11th to seek public participation. A Federal Register notice will be published with details about the workshop and will also provide details for those who wish to submit written comments. In addition, a draft “Guidance Document on Testing and Certification” will be discussed with the Commission at a public meeting on November 9th. See http://www.cpsc.gov for webcast details.” [Emphasis added]

This is good news for the business community on several levels. First of all, the CPSC is now communicating informally through at least one blog. While it increases the number of places to watch for legal developments, you can’t beat candor and openness. In addition, the CPSC is doing the considerate thing – giving advanced notice of a material event (the delay in this much-anticipated and much-feared rule). They are being nice, which is MUCH appreciated.

Finally, the Commission is being candid and admitting a small failure. [In fact, the admission is being done in a bi-partisan way, as Democrat Tenenbaum presumably consented to Republican Nord announcing this development in her new blog.] It is somewhat more complex than that, in fact. This is probably not best understood as a failure of the CPSC (although they are going to miss a date). They are CHOOSING to miss a date. Why? My guess is that they realize how important this rulemaking is, and are probably troubled by what the rule would look like under the (defective) CPSIA. It’s a public acknowledgement, the strongest in a long while, by the agency that it is genuinely troubled by the unintended consequences compelled by the new law. Withholding the 15 Month Rule is a sign of resistance against doing more damage in the marketplace.

The CPSC has heard from many stakeholders that this rule could be the final straw. I think it’s fair to assume that they do not want to do more damage. It is a bi-partisan worry, too – which is in the character of the CPSC over the years. They have not traditionally been the enemy of the business community, so it is nice to see them act with consideration again. Rumorville has it that the CPSC Staff could not find the magic words to make this rulemaking “work”. Good to admit it. There’s a lot implicit in that statement, most of it very good.

In my comment to the Nancy Nord blog, I ask the Commission to use the plain English meaning of the statute to make their decisions. If they cannot make a sensible decision using the plain English meaning of the words (e.g., does “any” mean “any” or not?), then the Commission should go to Congress and ask for an amendment. A statutory scheme based on twisting words into pretzels does not serve anyone’s interests. To understand our obligations, we go to the statute and read it. How can we run our businesses if there is a super-secret meaning to plain English words? Are we expected to master hundreds of pages of releases spread of months or years to discover the nugget explaining that “any” doesn’t mean “any”? This kind of treasure hunt inevitably fails. [If you like treasure hunts, see my recent blogpost on resale shops.]

Importantly, the CPSC has announced a two-day meeting on the 15 Month Rule on December 10/11. This is a critical meeting for all stakeholders. Please try to make it. I will be there.

Bottom line, this announcement is another gratefully-received sign of a shift in the wind. Let’s see whether more good follows in coming weeks. We now have more dots to connect. It would be wonderful to be able to trust the CPSC and the law again. Guys, please keep plugging away!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Nancy Nord Announces a Delay in the "15 Month Rule"