CPSIA – Lowest Common Denominator Government

We saw a display of Mr. Obama’s team in action this past week as McDonald’s was cornered into a national recall of a safe product. How did it happen? Did our government rise to the occasion, or simply resume its descent into the abyss?

“Americans want to be safe. And they expect their federal government to protect them. So that is what I’m here to do.” Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, NPR Report “Under Obama, Agencies Step Up Rule-Making”

Last week in a coordinated media extravaganza, an anonymous caller alerted Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) to the trace presence of cadmium in Shrek glasses being sold by McDonald’s. In a rapid fire series of events, McDonald’s announced a voluntary recall of the offending Made-in-America glasses “at the urging of the [CPSC] commission ”. The CPSC apparently pushed for the recall of the glasses by McDonald’s after quickly testing the glasses.

[It turns out that there were two "anonymous tipsters", one of whom is Jennifer Taggart, a regular reader of this blog. Ms. Taggart has acknowledged that cadmium levels on the McDonald's glasses are well within California's Proposition 65 restrictions. Prop. 65 is easily the most restrictive and challenging of the myriad local safety regulations.]

Rep. Speier seized the election year opportunity to lecture McDonald’s on safety: “’Our children’s health should not depend on the consciences of anonymous sources. Although McDonald’s did the right thing by recalling these products, we need stronger testing standards to ensure that all children’s products are proven safe before they hit the shelves,’ said Speier. ‘Cadmium is a toxic substance that is extremely dangerous to the developmental health of children. . . . Thanks to this anonymous tip received by my office, the proper agencies were alerted, necessary action was taken by McDonald’s, and the long-term health of millions of children is no longer at risk.’”

Jackie Speier is a Democrat representing the San Francisco area.

A media deluge followed the recall. Typical of the hyperbole is this article from NJ.com: “McDonald’s announced the voluntary recall after small amounts of cadmium were found in the enamel with which character images were painted on the glasses . . . . Long-term exposure to low levels of cadmium from those glasses can cause various health problems, including cancer, bone softening and severe kidney problems. [NJ State Assemblyman Paul] Moriarty, in a news release, demanded an investigation . . . . ‘It’s stunning that in this day and age our children can still come into contact with toxic materials just by using a glass featuring a cartoon character,’ Moriarty said in the release. . . . ” [Emphasis added] AP could not resist the McDonald’s cadmium frenzy that it helped to create: “A recall of 12 million cadmium-tainted ”Shrek” drinking glasses sold by McDonald’s raises questions about the safety of millions of similar cheap promotional products that have been sitting in Americans’ kitchen cabinets for years.”

It all boils down to trust, right? After all, it’s McDonald’s. McDonald’s is America, McDonald’s is children. If you can’t trust McDonald’s, who can you trust?

I will attempt to answer that question.

First – Can you trust McDonald’s?

Yes, absolutely, without reservation. McDonald’s (not a customer of ours, never was) has the best reputation of any company in the toy industry (in my humble opinion) for safety, conscientiousness and attention to detail. McDonald’s is HARDLY asleep at the wheel. Rep. Speier’s remarks are outrageous but for the fact that she is a California Democrat from San Francisco. Consider the source. I believe McDonald’s ten times out of ten against Rep. Speier.

On the other hand, if McDonald’s is so wonderful, why on Earth did they recall these glasses? Okay, you be the CEO of McDonald’s for a moment – what would you do? Fight for the right to sell cadmium-laced glasses? Argue that the glasses are “safe”, that toxic cadmium isn’t harmful? Please, McDonald’s had no choice because it has to protect its brand. Listen to the Moms in the video above. If they don’t trust McDonald’s, they will walk across the street to Wendy’s. McDonald’s has NO CHOICE but to “do the right thing”. The cost of the recall is a secondary concern. Burn, baby, burn.

Second – Can you trust an anonymous tipster?

Why be anonymous if you are acting “heroically”? Well, for one thing, being anonymous means you aren’t accountable if you are wrong. The two tipsters were using XRF guns, acknowledged by the CPSC to be imperfect and best used to screen for possible faults. It might be embarrassing – or expensive – to start a public panic and then be proven wrong. This mess might be seen as your fault and somebody might want you to pay for the expenses. Hmmm.

What if the caller had reason to hide his/her identity? This is the very worrisome scenario. There are many people who might want to rat out a McDonald’s. How about a competitor? Or a spurned supplier? A disgruntled employee or spouse of an employee? This is one of the primary objections I made to the public database – the potential for abuse is rampant. An anonymous tipster very well might be up to no good. McDonald’s loss could be the tipster’s gain – an ill-intentioned tipster in partnership with a self-promoting fear monger in election season (like Jackie Speier) could be a powder keg. [Ed. Note: It is worth noting for clarity's sake that Jennifer Taggart has identified herself so this discussion does not apply to her.]

This could happen to you, too. The CPSIA encourages this kind of rat-me-out frenzy. How many businesses will close or sell out because of this shameful law? Time will tell. In the meantime, the sport of trashing trademarks and company reputations will thrive at the hands of the “anonymous tipsters”.

Third – Can you trust the CPSC?

We ought to be able to trust them. Have they earned this trust?

Here’s a June 4th tweet from Scott Wolfson, Director of Public Affairs: “Scott_Wolfson: Note to reporters: the recalled McDonald’s glasses are not toxic.” Interesting – the CPSC apparently pushed for the recall of safe products. Wolfson is also responsible for the press release detailing this recall: “The designs on the glasses contain cadmium. Long term exposure to cadmium can cause adverse health effects.” Same guy. And Wolfson offered these calming words of reassurance to the AP: “Wolfson said the recalled glasses have ‘far less cadmium’ than the [recently] recalled jewelry. He would not say how much cadmium leached from the glasses in tests, only that it was ‘slightly above the protective level currently being developed by the agency.’”

I believe Mr. Wolfson is the author of the CPSC’s OnSafety blog – here’s how he counseled consumers about the McDonald’s glasses in a recent post: “If you bought these “Shrek Forever After 3D” glasses at McDonald’s – millions of you did – stop using them immediately. . . . The glasses contain low-levels of cadmium. . . . The company has stepped up to do the right thing [in issuing a recall].” [Emphasis added] He also justified the recall of non-toxic glasses in the New York Times as follows: “Both C.P.S.C. and McDonald’s are being highly protective of children in announcing this recall.”

Scott has a way with words, doesn’t he? Makes you wonder what his job is, exactly.

So the CPSC admits that the glasses were safe. Yet the “commission” urged McDonald’s to recall the glasses. Why? Wolfson says implausibly that the CPSC was being “highly protective” in recalling non-toxic glasses. Actually, “Why” may not even be the right question.

Let’s consider the question of “how”. On what legal basis did the CPSC press McDonald’s to take this step? The authority of the agency to demand a recall depends on the presence of a “substantial product hazard”. There is no other basis for the agency to take action – it cannot act on whims or because it is always crabby on Mondays. I have addressed this issue previously in this space, and noted that the authority to initiate a recall is based on the existence of “a product defect which (because of the pattern of defect, the number of defective products distributed in commerce, the severity of the risk, or otherwise) creates a substantial risk of injury to the public.”

If the CPSC’s Director of Public Affairs notifies the press that the product is not toxic, it is incontestably certain that the glasses don’t present a substantial product hazard in this case. For perspective, consider the views of the U.S. factory responsible for the glasses:

“[VP Ron] Biagi . . . added that [in addition to McDonald's] Durand Glass also does material safety tests. ‘We will do nothing (different) because we don’t need to,’ Biagi added. ‘You are always looking for the most healthful way to make a product. What we’re producing today, it is safe.’ Biagi said there are multiple suppliers, domestic and foreign, of the enamel used for the Shrek glasses. Other glass producers use the same product, he said. Late Friday, the company issued a short statement from its CEO for North American operations, Fred Dohn. ‘All the products, whether decorated or undecorated, that Arc International is delivering on the markets meet the highest standards of quality and safety,’ Dohn stated. ‘Arc International is a professional manufacturer that stands behind all its products. We therefore see this as an internal decision by McDonald’s and will be investigating the matter once we receive more information.’”

So what gives? By all appearances, the leadership of the agency substantially exceeded its legal authority in pressuring McDonald’s to recall these glasses. Any problem with that?

I won’t insult your intelligence with a rant about the trustworthiness of the Democrats who are running the shop these days. If you trust Jackie Speier and the like after this sorry tale, I can’t help you.

In closing, let’s recall the words of Ms. Tenenbaum: “Americans want to be safe. And they expect their federal government to protect them. So that is what I’m here to do.” By all appearances, Ms. Tenenbaum was doing exactly what she promised – her agency is wrapping you in bubble wrap whether you need it or not. She says that’s how you want it – no matter that it’s outside her legal authority, well-beyond any notion of common sense and implemented with a complete disregard to economic consequences or the impact on other market participants. It’s okay because the press eats it up . . . and it helps reelect members of Congress. Everybody’s a winner as we sink into the abyss.

Lowest Common Denominator Government. Yes We Can.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Lowest Common Denominator Government

CPSIA – HTA Letter Blasts Imperfect Waxman Amendment (CPSEA)

[Emphasis added. Actual Letter can be viewed here.]

May 12, 2010

To:

The Honorable Bobby Rush
Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection

The Honorable Ed Whitfield
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection

The Honorable Henry Waxman
Chairman, Committee on Energy & Commerce

The Honorable Joe Barton
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Commerce

Re: The Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act (CPSEA)

To the Leadership of the House Commerce Committee:

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before your committee and for your continued attention to the needs of our small businesses. We would like to reiterate our position on the CPSEA and the relief we are seeking for our members.

We have previously endorsed the CPSEA because it is the only opportunity currently available to save small batch manufacturers from extinction after February 10, 2011, when the CPSC’s stay of enforcement of third party testing requirements expires. Under the CPSIA as it currently stands, many of our members are substantially limiting the products that they offer–some foregoing children’s products altogether–while others are laying off employees or limiting their business growth.

We have stated clearly that the CPSEA can and should be improved to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on small businesses without compromising safety. The CPSEA as currently written will likely save some of our member businesses. With improvements, however, you can save almost all of them. For the record, we would like to review the improvements we would like you to consider.

First and foremost, we would like the CPSEA to clearly state that small batch manufacturers are exempt from third party testing requirements. While report language to that affect would be helpful, a more explicit exemption within the language of the bill itself would provide more immediate and substantial relief. You can accomplish this by allowing:

* the use of XRF testing as an alternative testing method for lead in paint and lead in substrate

* alternative testing methods for products intended for use in classrooms or for children ages 7-12

* EN-71 testing as an alternative testing method

* CPSC rulemaking to allow for alternative testing methods based on risk analysis

* exemptions for small batch toymakers from ASTM F-963 testing

This language should be in the bill itself, not just in the report language. In the intervening days since our initial endorsement of the CPSEA, we have heard conflicting answers from several different CPSC commissioners as to the commission’s willingness or ability to provide affordable alternative testing methods for small batch manufacturers. If this bill is truly meant to benefit small batch manufacturers, it must be more clear and explicit in the exemptions it provides.

Second, we wish to reiterate our belief that alternative testing methods should be available to all companies. The Small Business Administration defines toy and clothing manufacturers with less than 500 employees as small businesses, which is far in excess of the CPSEA’s $1 million limit. If a revenue limit is used, it should be based only on income generated by the manufacture or importation of children’s products without including other unrelated business income. A manufacturer’s ability to pay for testing any given product is a function of the revenue it generates from that particular product, not the overall size of the company.

Third, we stated publicly during the April 29 hearing that the functional purpose exemption for products exceeding 300ppm/100ppm lead will not benefit our members because of the narrow scope of the exemption and the cost required to obtain it. The CPSC should instead be given authority to make exemptions to specific materials or product categories based on risk analysis. For example, the commission should have the power to exempt brass as a material and children’s saddles or microscopes as a product category. This is the only way in which small businesses would be able to take advantage of the functional purpose exemption.

Fourth, we believe that small batch manufacturers should be entirely exempted from mandatory labeling requirements.

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. We believe that the CPSEA can and should be improved to better target risk and provide more comprehensive relief for our members, who were never the source of unsafe products in the first place.

We remain hopeful that the democratic process can prevail and that a meaningful and bipartisan reform of the CPSIA can be enacted. We urge members of the committee to mark up the CPSEA and allow open discussion within the product safety subcommittee. The CPSIA was a bipartisan bill—its reform should be, too.

You hold the livelihoods of hundreds of small businesses in your hands. Please, make this work.

On behalf of the 435 small business members of the Handmade Toy Alliance, we thank you again for your attention to this important issue.

Respectfully,

The Handmade Toy Alliance

savehandmadetoys@gmail.com
http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/

Board members:

Cecilia Leibovitz, Craftsbury Kids, VT
Dan Marshall, Peapods Natural Toys, MN
Jill Chuckas, Crafty Baby, CT
Mary Newell, Terrapin Toys, OR
Jolie Fay, Skipping Hippos, OR
Marianne Mullen, Polkadotpatch, VT
Rob Wilson, Challenge & Fun, MA
Randy Hertzler, euroSource, PA
Kate Glynn, A Child’s Garden, MA

Read more here:
CPSIA – HTA Letter Blasts Imperfect Waxman Amendment (CPSEA)

CPSIA – New Waxman Amendment Draft Issued Tonight, Mark-up Set for Wednesday Morning

The third draft of the Waxman Amendment 2.0 was released this evening. I have attached a clean copy of the legislation, as well as a redline for your convenience. The powers-that-be also released a draft of their “report language“. The report language is interpretative language and is not included in the law mainly to keep future law clerks busy doing research. It should also give us something new to argue about.

This is the Committee Briefing Memo accompanying the draft legislation.

Consistent with past practice, this draft was issued with the usual coercion. A mark-up has been scheduled for Wednesday AM 10:00 a.m. in Room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building BUT the Dems will decide tomorrow if they will proceed with that process. All talk of a hearing to vet this legislation has been quashed by the Dems who are scrupulous in managing the record. [I will never get to testify, that's for sure.] There will be a meeting on Tuesday at 4 PM to discuss this draft, at which point the Dems will either pull the plug or move forward. Presumably, this depends on the enthusiastic response to this draft. The Dems say they want a bipartisan bill and further want to send it to the Senate with the news that the bill is “supported by industry”. In other words, Mr. Waxman is not interested in negotiating with the Senate, just wants their rubber stamp. He’s not big on “jawboning” if that means he has to listen to others and make concessions . . . .

You are right to consider this another patented Waxman “take it or leave it” offer.

In response to complaints that this bill ignores the many legitimate concerns of the small business community, Waxman staff has advised that they “can’t help everyone”. That means you, guys.

Changes in this Draft:

a. Functional Purpose “Exception” – Minimal changes, mainly reverting back to the “public health or safety” test formulation. References to “all foreseeable users” is gone now. The “town hall” provision allowing “interested parties” to intervene in every proceeding has been eliminated. The “Previously Denied Petitions” provision is unchanged and still makes no sense.

The report language clarifies the meaning of “practicable”, noting that excessive or unreasonable costs should be considered not “practicable”. Specifically, they note: “The Committee does not consider a mere increase in the cost of manufacture or production, in itself, to be excessive. The Committee does expect that the Commission will consider compliance to be impracticable where compliance would place the viability and continuation of a class of products or materials in jeopardy, such as youth All Terrain Vehicles or youth bicycles made with recycled steel.” [Emphasis added]

In case you were wondering about the purpose of the functional purpose exception, it is a gift to the noted industries. It’s not for you. Remember, this relief is only available to those who are capable of mounting an exception application. Not a small undertaking.

Remember that the applicant for a functional purpose exception must apply for relief for a “specific product or material”. You must also PROVE that your costs are not “practicable”. Can you see some wiggle room there? A true believer Commission might have very little incentive to interpret these terms permissively. [You can count on that one with the Dems in charge.] This will be a costly and technical process. Think of this in the context of your business – is this realistic? With our 1500 products, it’s just inconceivable. Too bad for us. Let’s also not forget the stringency of the three-prong test.

The report language specifies that a “measurable adverse effect” on public health or safety refers to changes in blood lead levels. The language is pretty specific and will require a toxicologist’s report to justify any exemption. Here are the magic words: “Given that there is no current blood level at which the scientific community considers lead exposure to be ‘safe,’ the Committee understands that a very small adverse effect may theoretically occur at any level of exposure. The Committee intends, however, for the Commission to deny requests for exception under this section as having a ‘measurable adverse effect’ on health or safety only in the case of those adverse effects that the Commission determines to be empirically, as opposed to theoretically, measurable. At present, the Committee understands that there is scientific consensus to interpret the phrase ‘measurable adverse effect’ from lead exposure to mean a measurable increase in blood lead levels.“

This is a form of legislative filter to make sure that the exception is only for the chosen industries or companies. Again, this isn’t meant for small fry, just big business. That’s equity these days, I guess.

Anyone remember how hotly the Dems defended the inclusion of ATVs and bikes in this law back in ’08 and ’09? It was intentional, they insisted, necessary to protect the public against deadly lead. There’s no safe level of lead, blah blah blah. Guess they got over that one . . . after they received 170,000 emails from ATV’rs.

b. Thrift Store Relief: Virtually no change, other than minor clarifications.

Not unlike the workings of other parts of the CPSIA, this new provision will be good for large scale thrift organizations like Goodwill or Salvation Army who are presumably able to centrally evaluate complex laws and implement system-wide responses to changes in law. i wonder how the smaller independent Mom-and-Pops will react to this provision. In any event, the provision tacitly bans resale of children’s jewelry, painted toys and vinyl children’s products. Stores will have to keep straight which items are in and which are out. With many resale stores staffed with minimum wage workers, I question how effectively most owners can prevent violations without just avoiding the category (at least in part).

Resale of childcare articles, including cribs, seems unaffected. The real gotcha is the risk the stores will bear from recalls. For that reason, I think many stores will stay away from reselling this category of goods. Clothing may make a reappearance in resale shops, finally.

It is uncredible that the Democrats let this industry flap in the wind for almost two years before acting to save them from CPSIA oblivion. Think of the economic devastation these insensitive legislators wrought on small businesses all America, not to mention the patrons of this important industry – through two cold winters. This is just inexcusable, a true demonstration of stubbornness or being completely out of touch. Those who suffered at the hands of the Dem inaction have no recourse, either. Shame, shame.

c. Relief for Small Batch Manufacturers: The sham of this “relief” is perpetuated in this new draft. The definitions of “covered products” and “Small Batch Manufacturer” were left structurally intact but the thresholds were tweaked upward meaninglessly to 7500 units or $50,000 sold per item per (calendar) year, with an overall cap of company sales of $1 million. “Covered Products” oddly continues to refer only to manufactured items but Small Batch Manufacturers are defined by sales of manufactured OR imported goods. Go figure.

As I pointed out earlier today, Mattell and Hasbro have quarterly revenues of $880 million and $672 million, respectively. The so-called relief here is for companies with annual revenue of under $1 million. If these little companies pop over that revenue hurdle, they will be held to the same standard as Mattel and Hasbro. Don’t worry, the CPSC plans to coach the little guys! Now if only they could provide non-recourse financing . . . .

Even if you are salivating over this pathetic crumb of “relief”, I encourage you to reread what goodies Mr. Waxman is giving you. Here’s the meat of it: “Any such alternative requirements shall provide for reasonable testing methods to assure compliance with the relevant consumer product safety standards.” The reasonable TESTING METHODS must ASSURE COMPLIANCE. You tell me what this English sentence means. I think it means the small fry will be testing. I know the rest of us will, too. Testing and testing and testing and testing. It’s time to buy stock in Intertek, I think. Later on, the bill instructs the Commission to work “cooperatively” with the little guys to “impose the least burdensome testing requirements . . . consistent with goals of statute.” And those goals are, what exactly? Comprehensive, prophylactic testing.

Oh, the bounty of this relief!

d. Phthlates and Inaccessible Components: No material changes.

e. Subpoena Power: No changes whatsoever. Somebody’s going to be sorry someday that this procedural speed bump was removed. Unfettered power of government was always un-American . . . until we met these Democrats.

Conclusion:

I wish I could recommend this bill. It has some good stuff in it. Unfortunately, it is utterly ineffective to arrest the damage being inflicted by the CPSIA. It is a gift to large industries but leaves the hammerlock on American small businesses catering children’s markets. It sustains the fantastic notion that those of us in this business have somehow been poisoning kids for years or decades. That’s a slanderous notion, something deeply offensive to me, but for the Dems to admit otherwise would mean a mea culpa. And there’s no chance of that.

If the Dems manage to tempt enough corporate entities to sell out for this low price, it will be the biggest gift ever given by the corporate community to Mr. Waxman. He should host a champagne party for himself if he buys off the resistance. There will be no remaining organized opposition to the bulk of his CPSIA handiwork, and the focus will shift to surviving a manic CPSC bent on enforcing voluminous but ineffective safety rules and ladling out massive penalties for infractions without injuries. And once the action moves permanently to Bethesda, we’ll see finally how much Cassandra got right.

I’m not looking forward to finding out. Vote NO on Waxman.

Read more here:
CPSIA – New Waxman Amendment Draft Issued Tonight, Mark-up Set for Wednesday Morning

CPSIA – Too Much of a Good Thing? Nah!

The CPSC’s notorious Resale Roundup was greeted with more “acclaim” by Fox News this week. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Be sure to check out the article (“New Government Policy Imposes Strict Standards on Garage Sales Nationwide”), the slideshow (“Ridiculous Recalls?”) and the video . Each is worth your time. For those who are not familiar with this novel new program, the CPSC is fanning out to save you from “evil” resellers who might be foisting off recalled items on you. This includes spying on local garage sales, visiting your local resale shop and poking around on eBay and Craigslist.com. The CPSC has apparently given up on education and individual responsibility as a way to protect against harm – instead, they are redoubling their effort to be the Cop On The Beat, like it or not. In this case, they have chosen to make up a fake crisis, the resale of recalled items, to justify becoming an active protector of the public safety. To get the flavor of this article and the basic problem, here are a few quotes: 1. “The [strict CPSIA] standards were originally interpreted to apply only to new products, but now the CPSC says they apply to used items as well. ‘Those who resell recalled children’s products are not only breaking the law, they are putting children’s lives at risk,’ said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. ‘Resale stores should make safety their business and check for recalled products and hazards to children.’” RW – Note that Ms. Tenenbaum justifies this massive incursion into people’s lives by the claim that recalled items “[put] children’s lives at risk”. While I concede SOME recalled items might in fact endanger children’s lives, please check out the slideshow for perspective on the mortal danger posed by many recalled items. Hmmm. A little hyperbole, perhaps? There are ways to deal with the limited problem of certain dangerous items circulating without resorting to the claim that there’s a Five Alarm Fire burning. 2. “CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson says the fines are intended for large companies with serious infractions. ‘CPSC is an agency that has used its penalty powers over its 30-year history against companies,’ Wolfson told FOXNews.com. ‘CPSC is not seeking to pursue penalties against individuals hosting a garage sale or yard sale, we are encouraging them to take the right steps to not resell recalled products.’ But FOX News Legal Analyst Bob Massi says the law makes no distinction for families and small resellers. . . . Don Mays, senior director of product safety planning at the publisher of Consumer Reports, says the hefty penalties are necessary to have an impact. ‘The former civil penalty limit of $1.87 million was too small to be an effective deterrent to large companies who flagrantly violated the law,’ Mays told FOXNews.com. ‘Mattel and its subsidiary Fisher-Price, for example, recently paid a $2.3 million penalty for importing about 2 million toys that violated the CPSC 30-year-old lead paint ban — that amounts to just over one dollar per toy.’” RW – CPSC says they won’t hit you with big penalties, but the law permits it. The Fox video shows that people are afraid. It’s hard to trust a regulatory agency out looking for “bad guys” in your garage with a BIG stick and no checks, balances or controls on how it will use it. Yes, they claim to be all sweetness and light – but what happens if they change their minds? The consumer groups are all for hefty fines, as Mr. Mays confirms, and nowadays, they seem to be passing notes to Congress and to the CPSC. So, is it any surprise that many people are quite alarmed? Side note: Don’t worry, the CPSC says they won’t be coming into your home (yet): “Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the agency, said it wouldn’t be dispatching bureaucratic storm troopers into private homes to see whether people were selling recalled products from their garages, yards or churches. ‘We’re not looking to come across as being heavy-handed,’ he said. ‘We want to make sure that everybody knows what the rules of engagement are to help spur greater compliance, so that enforcement becomes less of an issue. But we’re still going to enforce.’” Aha. Personally, I feel SO much better now. 3. “‘It is scary to think that there could be such hefty fines imposed on unsuspecting households,’ another garage sale organizer, Patti Lombardi, told FOXNews.com. ‘I think I speak for many people when I say that the government spends too much time interfering in the individual citizen’s personal life and this is almost bordering on the ridiculous … what if it opens up a Pandora’s box of litigation brought by the purchasers of items at garage sales?’” RW – Ms. Lombardi hits the nail on the head for the business community. We all KNOW that litigation will follow in the wake of this law. There is a reason why the trial bar-supported consumer groups are all so gung-ho on this law. Everything’s illegal now (check out your reporting requirements under Section 15(b) of the CPSIA – you have a generous 24 hours to report ANY violation of ANY term of ANY law, regulation or rule enforced by the CPSC (they don’t even publish a list, btw) – super!). Litigation by public attorney generals, State attorney generals and the Feds is expected by everyone. Given that it is inevitable that everyone will have violated something, and with the imputed knowledge standard of the CPSIA, probably deemed to have done so “intentionally”, the choice of when and who to sue will favor the government rather substantially. The law was written to terrorize – and mission accomplished, it has. 4. “‘If I’ve got a wirebound notebook, the lead content in that wire binding is now under scrutiny, even though the chance of ingesting lead in any amount from something like that is virtually non-existent, [TimetoPlayMag.com content director Chris Byrne] said. ‘It’s a level of political grandstanding to say ‘we’re taking care of everything,’ but the science clearly demonstrates that the transference is not really possible — I mean, a child who eats the wire binding from a notebook is going to have significantly worse health problems than lead.’” Perhaps you get the idea. I wonder if the CPSC and Congress will EVER get the idea.

More:
CPSIA – Too Much of a Good Thing? Nah!

CPSIA – My Letter to Inez Tenenbaum (9-17-09)

September 17, 2009 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS The Honorable Inez Tenenbaum Chairman U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 4330 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Re: Safety of Rhinestones and Crystals Dear Chairman Tenenbaum: I am writing on behalf of the Alliance for Children’s Product Safety, an organization comprised of small businesses in many industries impacted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). Of particular concern to Alliance members is the “unintended consequences” of the CPSIA, namely that many safe products will be explicitly or effectively forced from the market despite sterling safety records, and that many viable and law-abiding businesses will be economically crippled (or worse) by new testing, labeling and other obligations and liabilities under the new law. We are aware of your recent testimony at a CPSIA oversight hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection on September 10, 2009. In your testimony, you expressed concern that swallowing “50 beads” (referring to rhinestones, glass beads or crystals) might lead to measurable change in blood lead levels and would hence be considered “unsafe.” You also indicated that your statement of July 17, 2009 explaining your vote to deny the Section 101(b) exclusion request of the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association and other organizations for such beads was “poorly worded,” and the level of lead in such beads was in fact a cause for concern. You mentioned, in particular, beads with lead levels of 23,000 ppm. We are puzzled by this testimony and kindly request clarification. Notably, you wrote in your statement of July 17 that “Commission staff recognized that most crystal and glass beads do not appear to pose a serious health risk to children.” You also stated clearly that risk assessment by the Commission “appears to be in direct conflict with the statutory language [of the CPSIA]” and therefore the agency is foreclosed from considering factors such as “bioavailability of lead, accessibility of the lead to children, foreseeable use and abuse, foreseeable duration of exposure, marketing and life cycle of the product” in any exemption proceeding. We are therefore confused by your testimony that your vote against the exclusion request was actually motivated by a safety concern (risk assessment). The clarity and consistency of CPSC administration of the CPSIA is a serious issue for businesses attempting to comply with the new law. It is well-known that confusion among the regulated industries has caused market chaos and considerable business losses. The rhinestones decision, followed by your recent Congressional testimony, creates serious new issues that will further confuse those trying to comply with the law. We request that the Commission provide clarification on your July 17 contention that exemption requests will be made without regard to risk assessment. If risk assessment is not permitted by the CPSIA in such proceedings (as has been consistently stated by you as well as by Commissioners Nord and Moore), we request that the Commission explain the relevance of the safety considerations of swallowing 50 rhinestones on the rhinestones exemption request decision. If your testimony before Congress indicates that risk assessment is now permitted in CPSIA exemption proceedings, please explain the legal basis for this change in statutory interpretation. We believe that the terms of the CPSIA require that the CPSC deny the exclusion request for rhinestones based solely on the lead levels in the stones; however, we do not believe rhinestones, crystals or glass beads present any health issue for children. Rhinestones are well-known to be safe. These stones are a classic “innocent victim” of CPSIA, like so many other safe product classes similarly affected. We request the information that you used to support your testimony that swallowing 50 beads present a health risk to children. In particular, we believe this conclusion is dependent on two theses: a. That swallowing 50 beads is a “foreseeable use and abuse”. b. That swallowing 50 beads will cause a measurable change in blood lead levels (one micro-gram per deciliter of blood). Likelihood of Swallowing 50 Beads. Based on a review of medical literature, the risk of swallowing 50 beads is minimal for “normal” children. For instance, in “Foreign-Body Ingestion in Children: Experience With 1,265 Cases”, Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Vol. 10, No. 10 (October, 1999), pp. 1472-1476, the authors document 552 cases of proven foreign body ingestion but do not indicate any record of jewels being ingested. Although NEISS data (this author reviewed data from 2005) shows that jewelry is known to be ingested by children, many cases in the database are not proven (merely suspected) or involve products not relevant to this issue, and in the vast majority of cases, the swallowing are inadvertent or accidental. The accidental nature of ingestion of jewelry is quite relevant here, as the accidental ingestion of four bracelets or 20 rings in incontestably improbable. In addition, such a serious incident would take a great deal of time and an intent to create mischief, none of which is considered a “foreseeable use and abuse” of a children’s product. It is notable that rhinestones are not meant to be ingested, have no flavor or smell and are, in fact, rocks. Rocks are not food and are unlikely to be ingested by children with normal mental health or normal intelligence. On February 2, 2009, the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association and related organizations submitted a request for exclusion of these stones from the lead limits of the CPSIA under Section 101(b) (the “February 2 Letter”). In that letter, they provided industry data on the use of decorative stones in jewelry. Notably, the February 2 letter indicates that jewelry intended for children six years or younger contains between 4-15 stones. Thus, a child of six years of age or younger would have to consume 4-13 pieces of his/her jewelry to swallow 50 beads. This appears to be a highly unusual event. We therefore request that CPSC provide data supporting your contention that swallowing 50 beads is a “foreseeable use or abuse” of children’s products containing rhinestones, crystals or glass beads.. Likelihood of Blood Lead Level Changes. In their February 2 letter, the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association and related organizations provided a technical study entitled “Evaluation of Lead in Crystal Beads and Rhinestones” prepared by the respected consulting company, Exponent. In its study, Exponent calculates the lead leaching rate of rhinestones (with lead levels in excess of 600 ppm) in saline (mouthing, 0.15 micro-grams per gram of stones) and acid extraction (ingestion, 0.52 micro-grams per gram of stones). Likewise, it notes that one gram of the most common size of such stones (10PP) equal 333 stones. [Obviously, larger stones require fewer stones to reach one gram in mass, but the analytical results are similar.] Studies of the daily intake of lead for children demonstrate that lead is present throughout the food system and is present in our air and water as well. As a consequence, children will inevitably consume lead throughout the day by simply breathing, eating and drinking water. [It is well-accepted that the largest source for childhood lead is house paint, followed by dirt and air.] A recent study of dietary intake of lead by children in India indicates that tolerable daily intake of lead far exceeds 10 micro-grams per day (see “Dietary and Inhalation Intake of Lead and Estimation of Blood Lead Levels in Adults and Children in Kanpur, India”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 1573-1588, December 2005 ). Similarly, the Exponent study submitted on February 2 indicates that the FDA has determined that six micro-grams of lead per day is required to produce a one micro-gram of lead per deciliter change in blood lead levels in children six years old or younger. Thus, to produce such a change in blood lead levels from jewels would require sustained daily ingestion of 12 grams of stones (roughly 4,000 stones or hundreds of pieces of jewelry) or mouthing of 42 grams of stones (roughly 14,000 stones or more than 1,000 pieces of jewelry). Clearly, this is unlikely to occur, particularly accidentally. It goes without saying that ingestion of 50 beads is far more likely to result in physical injury because of intestinal blockage or similar maladies than from lead poisoning. We do not believe any NEISS cases involving the accidental ingestion of jewels were considered a lead poisoning risk by the attending physicians. We kindly request that the CPSC provide data on any incident in the NEISS database documenting that the attending physician considered lead poisoning a risk from the ingestion of jewels. We also kindly request that the CPSC provide back-up data and analysis to support your assertion that the CPSC “could not determine” whether swallowing 50 beads will cause a measurable change in blood lead levels. The Need for Flexibility. Finally, we note that in last week’s hearings, Rep. George Radanovich asked you whether you needed “flexibility so [you] can exempt safe products”. You replied that it was ‘premature” for you to answer that question. We are concerned by your unwillingness to answer this question definitively and kindly request an explanation as to why it is “premature” to ask for flexibility to exempt safe products from the lead limits of the CPSIA. Given that the agency has a limited budget, please explain how the Commission will deploy its resources to regulate and supervise safe products, when the need to deal with unsafe products or safety risks is so overwhelmingly large. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Richard Woldenberg Chairman Alliance for Children’s Product Safety cc: Commissioner Robert Adler Commissioner Thomas Moore Commissioner Nancy Nord Commissioner Anne Northrup

Read this article:
CPSIA – My Letter to Inez Tenenbaum (9-17-09)

CPSIA – A Challenge to Inez Tenenbaum

In today’s House hearing featuring CSPC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, the subject of rhinestones (crystal beads) came up. At about the 1:42 point in her testimony , Rep. George Radanovich asked her about the real health risk posed by crystal beads in the context of his concern over the agency’s need for the flexibility to use risk-based analysis. Ms. Tenenbaum contended that “interpretation” of her comments on crystals have “muddied the waters”. She defended the banning of rhinestones on the basis that although crystal beads might not violate the previous “substantial injury or illness” standard of the FHSA, some beads have higher concentrations of lead that violate the new CPSIA standard. [For instance, leaded crystal, hence the name.] Rep. Radanovich questioned whether this matters as a practical safety matter since swallowing a bead is exceedingly unlikely to cause injury from lead. Ms. Tenenbaum stated that while leaching of lead from one bead poses no problem, “what if the child swallowed 50 small beads?” She goes on to note that the agency “could not determine” whether 50 beads would raise the blood levels of lead. [She apparently concedes that the only potential risk with beads (from lead) is from ingestion, not handling or airborne lead.] I was blown away by this statement from the Chairman of the CPSC. She didn’t sound concerned with safety; instead, she seemed to think that her job was to defend the law she was given to enforce. Her reasoning appears to be made solely in the context of this goofy law. Common sense is only relevant if the law says so, apparently. This leaves us high and dry. Who will stand up for rational safety policy if not her? Her analysis of the risks of swallowing stones is also mindboggling. First of all, and most importantly, in her testimony before Congress today, Ms. Tenenbaum defended setting national safety policy based on our society’s lowest common denominator, a child who would swallow FIFTY BEADS. Yes, she justifies the devastation of several industries and uncountable companies dependent on these decorative stones on the grounds that if a child swallows 50 beads, he/she might get lead poisoning. Remember, we are talking about eating ROCKS here. Who might these children be that swallow 50 beads? Completely unsupervised children at a minimum, for one thing. So Ms. Tenenbaum apparently believes that she must enforce the law in a way that protects children against the total abdication of basic care by parents, teachers and caretakers. [If that is really a sound basis for national policy, Big Brother is going to look good by comparison pretty soon.] Second, only children with real problems (unrelated to product safety) would eat 50 beads (rocks). I personally have never eaten a rock or a bead, have you? These are kids that have serious deficits. So we are trashing all these companies because children of this nature MIGHT be in danger. What percentage of society will benefit from this approach, and at the expense of how many other people? Interesting question? And let’s not forget . . . that if you swallow 50 beads (rocks), you have bigger problems ahead of you than lead poisoning. Amazingly, the Chairman of the CPSC is apparently so absorbed in enforcing this defective law that this important common sense point is seemingly lost on her. Check out her Congressional testimony. She was actually arguing with a member of Congress to defend the decision to ban these stones on this basis. If this isn’t proof of an upside down world, I don’t know what is. How is your confidence in the CPSC now? BUT what if Ms. Tenenbaum is RIGHT? Holy cow, what if you can get lead poisoning from crystal beads? She must have a basis for her assertions, right? Well, I have little kids that pass through my house all the time. As we know, rhinestones are not illegal to OWN, just illegal to sell. I happen to own some rhinestones and now I am WORRIED. So I want to know how Ms. Tenenbaum derived her conclusion that 50 rhinestones poses a health risk. Clearly, a sophisticated agency like the CPSC wouldn’t make such a direct statement in front of Congress without a firm basis for it. So, my challenge to Ms. Tenenbaum is to PROVE that 50 crystal beads are dangerous (as a source of lead poisoning). She told Rep. Radanovich they might be dangerous – now, let’s see the DATA and the MATHEMATICS. I think the U.S. public deserves to see it. But I don’t want to make things too tough on the CPSC. I will help out a bit here. The Fashion Jewelry industry submitted a lot of DATA to the CPSC back in February. I have absolutely nothing else to do with my time and gave up sleeping longggg ago, so I re-read the industry’s data with a calculator in hand. Here’s what I think is the right answer. Ms. Tenenbaum can correct my math if I am mistaken. 1. The industry says that a popular size of rhinestone is 10PP for children six years old and younger (the target market for CPSC enforcement). It takes 333 of this size stone to equal one gram (remember this number). There are typically 10-15 such stones in jewelry for this age group, so to swallow one gram of stones would require eating 20-30 bracelets. Yummy, munch munch. It takes fewer stones to equal one gram for larger stones, but then again, fewer such stones are used in each piece of jewelry, too. You can find the chart in the industry letter on page 8 and look it over yourself. Eating a gram of stones will take a lot of milk, plus access to piles of jewelry. I think it’s an ambitious project for a determined, hungry, totally unsupervised child with access to tools. 2. There’s lead in your food, your water and your air. I have previously gone over some of these numbers (actually more than once ). The industry notes that the FDA has standards for lead in the food supply and sets a provisional tolerable daily consumption limit of 6 micro-grams of lead for children seven years old and younger. This level of consumption of lead theoretically corresponds to a change of one micro-gram of lead per deciliter of blood. The corresponding tolerable consumption levels for kids older than seven is 15 micro-grams of lead per day in food and water. [The FDA doesn't set standards for the lead we breathe all day long, apparently, so let's just ignore that significant source of daily lead intake.] Studies show that daily dietary intakes of lead for children range as high as 1.17 micro-grams of lead on average, well below the standards established by the FDA. If every food was at the maximum lead content, children’s diets might contain as much as 3.5 micro-grams of lead, still okay. 3. The industry submitted studies that showed that, based on ONE GRAM of stones, saline tests leach out 0.15 micro-grams of lead. Acid-extractions tests on ONE GRAM of stones produces leaching of 0.52 micro-grams of lead. To equal the daily intake in an average diet, you would have to swallow (acid extraction test) at least two grams of stones. That’s 666 of the 10PP stones, or the equivalent of up to 70 pieces of jewelry. in an absolute worst case, most unforeseen case, a child would have to swallow 54 30PP stones (11 pieces of jewelry), 210 2-mm stones (about 20 pieces of jewelry) or 22 4-mm stones (4-6 pieces of jewelry). This is to produce ONE MICRO-GRAM of lead intake. [If you are worried about mouthing, multiple the stone count by 3.5.] To raise blood levels by one micro-gram per deciliter of blood, the basic measurable change in lead levels, a child would have to ingest SIX TIMES AS MUCH on a daily basis. For those of you who don’t have access to a calculator or can’t do mental math, this means that to raise blood levels by the minimum amount, you would need to ingest about 130 of the largest reported stones or about 4,000 of the most common ones every day. Based on mouthing only, the number rises to 450+ large stones or 14,000 of the common stones. That’s quite a mouthful. Ms. Tenenbaum, the answer please?

Original post:
CPSIA – A Challenge to Inez Tenenbaum

« Previous Page