CPSIA – ICPHSO Update on the Database

Cheryl Falvey announced at the beginning of this overtime Q&A session that she wants to have a civilized discussion of the problems of the database, because they want to solve problems. That said, she said she’d cut it short if it turns into a gripe session about the database “because I know you hate the database”.

Nice, at least the General Counsel of the CPSC has an open mind! This reminds me of her aggressive and utterly unsympathetic suggestion at the November 2008 CPSC Lead Panel that we should all have a big “yard sale” of products that exceed the lead standard. Gave me a warm feeling then, gives me a warm feeling now.

I will try to craft some questions that she will find acceptable.

CF: Need to have your licensees register as part of the database. Licensors can also be listed as a “viewer” under the DB. They may not want that, because there could be liability issues.

[RW: Hmmm, I thought this database was all about empowering consumers. Liability? Empowering consumers to do WHAT?]

CF: More details given to licensors [aimed at Disney, who must have raised this question offline] plus some legal advice on how they should structure their licensing agreements “right now”.

CF: It’s a “complaint” database, not a “causation” database. [RW: This makes NO sense based on the stories they all tell about why they want the database implemented, especially the fantastic story told by Inez Tenenbaum in her keynote speech. She says she feels good when someone removes a product from use while the CPSC is working on a recall. This is CLEARLY all about making a JUDGMENT on the products - in other words, CAUSATION. It's a tall tale to contend that the general public will understand that this is a complaint database. Consume groups promote the database as a warehouse of the truth, not just a "blog". Cheryl Falvey is spinning yarns to justify her work on the database.]

CF: You are raising policy questions and this meeting is not about policy. We were dealt this hand and were told by the Commission to get the database up and running. If you disagree with the policy, you need to take it to the Hill. I am going to take other questions now.

[RW: So we cannot complain about the consequences of CPSC action on the database because they're just doing their job. We must hold them harmless and "get used to it". This is an old argument used by Falvey in past speeches - don't be in denial, it's coming, get used to it, take it on board. My question for you - do you like being treated this way? I don't.]

Q: We have been the victim of fraud where people submit pictures of “injury” pulled from the Internet. We also don’t get enough data from you, may not have consumer’s contact information and don’t have the time or resources to properly research or resolve these accusations before the ten days are up. At that point, the damage is irreversible. What can we do to protect ourselves?

A: We have not had bad experiences in the “soft launch”. We don’t want you to be hurt, you should “raise” these issues. [Didn't she say this morning that they received so many photos that they had to get new servers? No problelms . . . .]

[RW: Fingers-in-ears. This does not correspond to the rules, Cheryl, and you didn't answer the question. The question notes that there won't be enough time or information to verify or sort out the claim before it's published. Why are you deaf to this? You know that your publication of this data CANNOT be remedied. Oh yeah, you are just doing your job.]

Q: Why can’t you just test this system with people who have already registered and learn about the issues from this experience?

A: Your idea is a “great idea” and we will see if we can run with it.

[RW: Don't hold your breath.]

CF: We really want to talk about the brand and license issue!

Q: What will happen to me if an injury report blaming me for an exploding battery is actually counterfeit?

A: The interest is in protecting the public, that’s the policy issue. The disclaimer seems to mean a lot to Cheryl, cures all these ills. She poses the question of whether bulking up the disclaimer.

[RW: The answer to all of these question boils down to the fact that manufacturers have no due process rights because their rights are deemed inferior to consumers. This is a policy decision, too, and is NOT part of the law. It's the philosophy of the CPSC these days, and is political in nature. Using Falvey to announce the policy makes it look more like a legal judgment, however. Falvey has not explained HOW due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been removed for U.S. corporations under the CPSIA.]

CF: Can’t put off the March 11th implementation of the database.

[RW: Recall my remark about an open mind. This isn't a gripe session, this is a venting session hosted by Cheryl Falvey. She has no interest in making any changes - consumer groups get their way. Mike Pompeo's amendment better become law. The CPSC will do NOTING to address known defects in the database. As Falvey says, these are "policy" issues, outside her job spec.]

Q: Can manufacturers reply or comment privately?

A: Nope, if you comment, the comments need to be published. Only the confidential parts of the comment won’t be posted. [RW: This is so unbelievably one-sided. It's victory for the left wing. They put their people in charge and let them run amok.]

Q: We share brands with other companies (think of celebrity brands). How will you handle notification tied to such brands on multiple products?

A: The tracking labels would really solve all of these problems! We need to be able to send the notice to somebody. We understand the gap and are working to make the system better. We have a lot of brand information already.

Q: We traditionally get written notices that identify us as a manufacturer of a halogen table lamp. We make 20 halogen table lamps. What will happen under the database?

A: You’ll get the notice and if you can’t give us information on the product, one of us will have to call the customer. In any event, the data will go up on the database.

[RW: This is a classic problem illustrating how manufacturers will be unable to verify information or contest information before it's posted. As Falvey demonstrates, CPSC policy is that this is the manufacturer's problem. This is a travesty. Ironically, the issue was subtle enough that the questioner (a large company) could not see that he is prevented from identifying the product - even to verify that he made it - but will be labeled the source of a product "incident". And Falvey says that a claim this lame will still make the cut to be published. Is that true? I wonder about that. If it doesn't make the cut, then Falvey can't match the rules to a scenario accurately. One way or another, it's a screwing. Thanks, CPSC!]

Q: If Li & Fung registers and gives my name as importer of record, who gets the notice?

A: We will go off the consumer complaint. Whoever is named will get the complaint. If they are registered, they will get it by email. If they are not, they get it snail mail. It’s still going up in ten days.

What a nauseating way to finish out such a lovely day.

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update on the Database

GUEST BLOG – Jolie Fay’s Story

I was not sure what all to tell. Narrowing down the story to a blog, or even a short conversation has been a challenge.

Do I mention that we are not “unintended consequences” but rather, “collateral damage”?

Do I bring up the seniors I help who are so old they do chair Tia-chi, who can afford lunch only when they can make it to the senior center, but have made wooden trucks for 40 years?

Do I bring up the fact that with NO notice to this cottage industry we are forced in the middle of the supply chain to test our products because large toy companies were breaking an already existing law?

Too much…too much to tell, so this is what I wrote. Just my story.

In November 2008 I learned about the CPSIA.

I thought that was the beginning of my journey with this law, but I realize now that my journey began when I was seven years old and participating in my first craft show with my mom. I was selling anything I could make, mostly small animals I had made from pom-poms, felt, glue and little googley eyes. Before age 12, I added to my “line” a small army of “pet rocks,” cats cradle kits, quilt patches, purses, and many, many other kids’ crafts.

When planning my family, I decided to start a business that would allow me to stay at home with my children. I started with what I knew, crafty-ness, sewing skills and some of my favorite memories of my childhood, reinvented. One thing lead to another, and before my daughter was a year old I had a business that would eventually help us buy a house in San Francisco.

Time passed, my business grew and so did my family. It was amazing being there to watch both of my daughters take their VERY first steps on their own, to be the one they turned to when they got hurt, to be their mother. I loved being there, and I knew I would not be in that situation without the money from my little on-line business.

We sold our house in San Francisco and moved to Portland, Oregon in March 2008. At the time, my business was strong. My line was growing and investing in my business seemed like the right move. My husband agreed and we invested a large portion of the profits from selling our house into my business.

I bought supplies and began production. When I bought the supplies, what I was making was legal to sell, but in August 2008, unbeknownst to me at the time, my life was taking a U-turn.

By November 2008 we felt the effects of the sluggish economy, but my business was still surviving and I felt optimistic about our future

Then I got the email: “if you make ANY products for kids, this law [CPSIA] affects you!”

I have to admit I ignored the first 20 or so emails, because I could not believe that my little sew-in-my-basement business was being forced into the same regulations as Mattel without any warning. As the days went on, and the number of emails I received grew, I realized my dream was crashing around me.

I called the lab, got the quote and did the math. CPSIA-mandated testing costs for my little product line was over $27,000 for just over $30,000 worth of product. I cannot express the horrible feeling I had when I realized that I had made a mistake that was going to cost my family all of our money. In the business world, companies recover. In my case, I WAS the company and what family can recover from a loss that huge? I was not only losing my investment, but I was also losing my source of income.

With the February 10, 2009 deadline to comply with the new lead standard only weeks away, the panic took over and I was fighting with everything I had to reach someone who would help make this nightmare go away.

I found a group of people nearby who were renting an XRF scanner, and I rented it for 24 hours. I tested every single item, every color way, every button style, every fabric piece, every color and style of trim…I tested in my tiny basement, next to my washer and dryer, for 15 hours. I was driven by a fear that I cannot describe. I needed to know that when I called every person in DC that I could think of, I could be certain that I had a product that was safe in March 2008 and continued to be safe, even though I did not have $27,000 to test my products to prove it.

I would wake up at 5am Portland time, to begin calling everyone imaginable in Washington, DC — any number I could find. I had never been politically active before and had NO IDEA how things worked. I genuinely believed that some Congressman would take my call and realize that a mistake had been made. I would start to tell my story, pacing between my washing machine and computer, crying to these aids who would reply “Thank you for your call. I will pass your message on.” I could just feel the rolling of their eyes and bored posture as I was begging them to let me talk to someone who could help me.

By 8 am, when my girls were up, I would be so emotionally drained and my spirit was crushed. I did this for weeks and it was truly one of the most painful times of my life.

The days passed, the fight went on. I would ask these aides and CPSC staffers “what do I do? Should I just throw it all away?” and their response would be “I cannot tell you what to do.” I was begging for help and they would only give me “I cannot tell you what to do.”.

Eventually the CPSC did issue some rulings that prevented my having to throw all my products in the garbage. However, these rulings were to few and too infrequent. CPSIA is going to doom my business. The testing costs, the paperwork, the liability and for what? Will my products be
any safer? No, instead there will be no products.

I have invested thousands of hours in trying to get the CPSIA changed to allow crafters – young and old – to continue their craft. The time I spent trying to bring common sense to the CPSIA was time I was not investing in my business. I was afraid to let up the fight because I was not seeing anyone else fighting for ME.

Where was my Senator, who told the crowd “folks, we did this for safety”?

Where was the ombudsman to help guide the way at the CPSC? (Surprise! There STILL is not a position at the CPSC to help the crafters, the stay-at-home moms who use skill and time to help feed their kids).

Where were the Congressmen who represent me and the seniors who have made SAFE children’s products for 50 years, and who can barely afford lunch and would NEVER be able to afford testing?

Who is looking out for the children who will learn from their mothers how to nurture their entrepreneurial spirit?

Last July I hit bottom. I had to turn my children over to daycare workers and join the work force just to keep us in our tiny rented house. My little business that helped us buy a home, that kept me at home with my kids to help them learn and grow, was no longer a safe investment of my time.

This is happening all across the county; women just like me, who are making safe kids’ products, are being forced to end their stay-at-home businesses. Mothers who want to obey the law, who are afraid of the consequences of NOT obeying the law, are making the choice to give up their dream to keep their children warm and fed.

We need a law that does not make us criminals. We MUST have a law that does not criminalize the old, young, and poor because they make safe products that they cannot afford to test.

On the second day of after-school care, I went to pick up my 5 year old daughter from school and the “teacher” pulled us aside as we were leaving. She said, “Jane had a tough day today, she did not want to be here. She wanted to be with her mom.” The “teacher” continued, “I am a grandmother and I know how to deal with this, so I took her by the hand and walked her to the mirror and said, ‘Jane, look at your face. Look at how UGLY you look when you cry.’”

I blame every one of the Energy and Commerce legislative staffers for the emotional injury to my daughter that day. She should be home with me, being raised by a mother who believes in the American spirit of hard work, integrity, and honesty.

She should be home with me while I continue my business of making safe children’s products.

She should be home with me, making pet rocks (illegal to sell today) and having fun making pom-pom animals with her mother – like the ones we used to sell at the local Saturday market.

My daughter is the CPSIA casualty of the week.

Blog post written by Jolie Fay, founder of Skipping Hippos clothing (www.skippinghippos.com) in Portland, OR and a
Board Member of the Handmade Toy Alliance

Read more here:
GUEST BLOG – Jolie Fay’s Story

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 – 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 – The Incoherent Theory of the "Common Toy Box"

Rachel Weintraub, fear monger extraordinaire, gave a vigorous defense of certain popular urban myths about lead in this week’s CPSIA hearing. Among her most cherished distortions is that old standard, the “common toy box”. I have discussed this in the past (here and here) and with your indulgence, will again take on Ms. Weintraub and her assertion of this idea.

To remind you, the “common toy box” is the principal justification for the age limit in the definition of “Children’s Product”, namely 12 years old and younger. This definition means that the lead limits apply to ALL products intended for children up to 12 years of age. The justification for this super conservative posture? We hear it all the time from the Waxmanis – the common toy box, of course.

Ms. Weintraub asserts that a common toy box is present in every house, and therefore a young child might gain unfortunate access to an older child’s toys. Given her assertion (that she says “everyone” would agree with) that there is “no safe level for lead”, the possible exposure of young children to the toys of their older brethren is an intolerable risk. Or as she puts it, “could be deadly”.

Rachel explains her method of solving this problem in her house, which she seems to think is reasonable:

“Children play with products that are in the household. As I mentioned, I have three children. I have [an] almost six, almost four and one year old. My children are very aware of what choking hazards are. They have toys that stay in their room. But there’s an important difference between a choking hazard and lead, and that is not only can I not identify whether the product has lead, they certainly can’t either. So we need to have laws that protect children in concrete reasonable ways that reflect how children actually interact with toys.”

Case closed?

I must defer here. Ms. Weintraub’s argument is incoherent and particularly inapplicable here.

First, the risk from lead stems from ingestion. Rachel’s focus here is on mouthing, and for simplicity, I will ignore ingestion by breathing (relevant only to lead-in-paint). Ms. Weintraub correctly notes that young children will mouth toys and other children’s products inappropriately. Children under 36 months of age are so prone to inappropriate mouthing that small parts are illegal in products suitable for them. The CPSC has long had guidelines for manufacturers to help them objectively determine which toys are suitable for children under three years of age.

By carefully controlling access to these possibly dangerous toys, Rachel is being a good parent. She is to be commended. Interestingly, Rachel’s argument also concedes that parenting has a role in safety with children’s products. It would not be responsible parenting for anyone, including Rachel, to rely on the government for making these judgments. She still has to monitor and supervise her children.

Interestingly, Congress is also on record on this topic. Small parts are a known hazard, and as noted, have long been illegal for kids under three years of age. That is not in dispute and in fact, became law (rather than simply the voluntary F963 standard) under the CPSIA. The Child Safety Protection Act of 1994 instituted mandatory safety labels for products suitable for kids aged four to six years of age (they were previously voluntary) for (among other things) small parts. Why? Congress recognized that items most likely to be in the “common toy box” and most attractive to children under 36 months of age are those toys intended for kids in the 4-6 age range. The mandatory safety labels were intended to put parents on notice to handle these products with special care. Congress did not make these products illegal notwithstanding the slight risk of inappropriate mouthing.

Congress took another swipe at this issue in the CPSIA itself. In adopting the “primarily intended for” standard in the definition of :Children’s Product”, Congress acknowledged that while other items in the household might contain lead and might be used by children, those products did not pose the same risk as products that would be attractive to young kids possibly prone to inappropriate mouthing. Put another way, Congress recognized that the level of risk did not justify regulating these other items. [This is the source of the tortured reasoning of the pen exemption decision.]

Human factors experts at the CPSC have never developed evidence that items for older children (six and over) are any more attractive than adult products to the younger children who because of their mouthing behavior and developmental state are most at risk. Hence, there has never previously been a perceived need for such restrictive rules to protect against mouthing.

Either mouthing is a big issue, or it is not. Rachel’s good parenting on small parts is simply an anti-mouthing strategy. There is no other reason to restrict small parts in her household. Having recognized the risk of inappropriate mouthing, Rachel and parents like her can fully be expected to closely monitor the mouthing behavior of their kids. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. When their kids suck on zippers, moms like Rachel will take it out of their mouths before “poisoning” can occur. [You would have to suck on a brass zipper for years before your blood lead levels would change measurably.] Likewise, if the kids start eating out of the dog’s bowl or licking doorknobs or whatever absurd childhood activity is posited, moms with Rachel’s philosophy of parenting will swoop down. Either they are attentive or they are not. Thus, Rachel’s kids are just as secure against lead as against small parts.

Even more interesting to me is the notion that Rachel is holding up her behavior as the “standard”. I think this is an interesting (but rational) concession on her part. Rachel is apparently a thoughtful parent and interested in her kids’ welfare. She acknowledges her personal responsibility to maintain a safe household for the kids’ benefit. So apparently in Rachel’s model, parents can think and can be held to a standard of exercising good judgment and individual responsibility. The government is not responsible for everything, it appears.

If we are to be sent down the river because of Rachel and the fantastic “common toy box”, I think the incoherence of her argument deserves careful exploration. Either common toy boxes causes tinjuries, or they don’t. Her parenting model does not leave much room for risk. Where’s the actual injury data to support her assertion of this dreaded risk? I think her words alone should NOT suffice. After all, of the 14 common toy box recalls in the history of the CPSC, none related to the CONTENTS of a common toy box.

Urban myths should not be the basis of law.

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

CPSIA – Eroding Trust in Our Leaders

The CPSIA spectacle over the past two years of Democratic leadership in Congress has been a sign of the times, something that revealed basic problems with these new stewards of our futures. Not only have the Democrats alone stood up against altering the CPSIA, the source of well-documented misery and phantom benefits, but they have ruled with an iron fist in an attempt to suffocate opposition. Please note that for two years, Congress under the leadership of Californians Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi has successfully resisted having a hearing about this law with stakeholder witnesses who could shed light on the problems (rather than the joke of hearing last Fall featuring one witness, a newly-appointed Party-loyalist Chairman of the CPSC). The message control and forum management has been revolting. Despite the fact that these folks work for us, there seems to be NOTHING we can do about this sham process.

Readers of this blog are well-aware of the mounting ANGER over this astounding indifference to facts the awful CPSIA and our suffering. The latest low point engineered by Democrats is the Commission’s failure to approve public discussion of the recommended changes to the CPSIA, a report due next Friday. This is no small issue – read my post from yesterday for a summary of legal changes necessary to restore sanity to safety administration in children’s products – yet the Dems apparently feel discussion of these issues in front of you might somehow limit their discretion. Huh? It is very tempting to believe that handlers from Congress (Guess Who) have given strict instructions to the Dem Commissioners that there will be NO public debate of these issues. And there won’t.

These blows to our faith in government raises serious questions of character. Leadership is accountable to the American public. A failure to operate openly and with an open mind is intolerable. People will not forget.

I understand that bipartisan meetings between Congressional staffers and the CPSC have been cancelled or postponed until the report is issued. Furthermore, I believe that Mr. Waxman is already circulating new language for his amendment redux quietly, sans hearing or public discussion. Connect the dots – the Democrats have decided what the report will say (they have the votes to ram it through), it has been pre-approved by Guess Who (which means it will not fix the CPSIA because the Dems on the Hill don’t care about our little problems) and a public discussion between Commissioners is pointless. As the self-appointed Prince of “Darkness”, Bob Adler, put it, “I think the positions at this point are pretty firmly set.” Right – set by Guess Who. Discussion in public will only embarrass the Dems on the Commission – they are only allowed to read from the script and will be unable to defend loopy positions without looking loopy themselves.

If all of this has not fully eroded trust in these folks, let’s not forget that we are not living in a vacuum. The behavior of the Dems on other issues is part of the milieu. These same “leaders” are making other messes for us to regard, such as Harry Reid’s “apology” for incredibly racist remarks about Obama’s skin color and “dialect”. OMG, can you believe the shamelessness? The Dems made everything nicey-nice by Obama and Al Sharpton forgiving Reid’s “poor choice of words”. Please, you can’t say something like that without thinking it, and if you think it, you are a bigot. Plain and simple. No apology will cover up this disgusting fact. ANY person in a minority will tell you that prejudice is deeply rooted, and no apology will rid the system of that poison. Reid’s apology rings rather hollow to me. And he’s the voice of the Dems in the Senate.

And then there’s health care. To protect you, Mr. Obama and the jackals crying out for health care reform have insisted on taxing “Cadillac” health care plans. This sounds “bad”, right – like someone’s getting something they don’t deserve, all at your expense. More benefits for “fat cats”, right? A great sound bite for the saviors to make their case . . . .

That’s what Obama and the other Democratic do-gooders are all about, making things fair for “regular” Americans, isn’t it? Well, Fortune Magazine has a different slant on this critical term in the Obamacare plan – namely, that the tax on so-called “Cadillac” plans will mainly punish the elderly. Why? Well, here’s a shocker, more expensive health care is generally health care delivered to sicker populations, like older Americans. Here’s an example of a plan that crosses the Cadillac boundary: “Now to Medicare — no Cadillac plan — which will spend about $510 billion this year to cover fewer than 46 million people. That’s more than $11,000 a person, well over the Cadillac threshold of $9,850 for single retirees 55 and up. And that’s without counting Medigap coverage (for which I have no numbers), which would send the average higher.” Right – Medicare, the health plan for older Americans.

I am sick of the misleading messaging, the manipulation, the indifference, the obstruction of this crop of Democrats. I have no idea if the CPSC Democratic leadership will rise to the occasion and do the right thing or whether the House and Senator Democrats will wake up to the terrible mess they made and take the appropriate steps to fix it or whether (as seems likely) the fix is in and we are cooked, but this much I DO know – I am sick of this treatment. I cannot support this kind of leadership and cannot abide by it.

The Democrats have made this mess entirely themselves. No one forced them to be so deaf and so indifferent. No one required their arrogance, high-handedness or insensitivity to the misery that they caused. When November 2 comes around and the American people exact their revenge, the party leadership will have no one to blame but themselves.

I look forward to that day.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Eroding Trust in Our Leaders