GUEST BLOG – Bill Chiasson: To the Media, CPSIA problems are spelled B-O-R-I-N-G

You all probably heard the philosophical question, “if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” You can ask a similar question in regards to the impact the CPSIA has had on small and medium-sized businesses – “if another U.S. worker loses his or her job due to the unintended consequences of the CPSIA, will anyone hear about it?” The answer is – only if you are reading this blog site. That’s because the media prefers only sensational headlines. The headline, “200 more workers lose their job due to the economic impact of the CPSIA” just doesn’t have the same panache as a prime time news show teaser like “Toxic Toys – No child is safe – tonight on ___________ news!!”

Sadly, most television viewers don’t know what C-P-S-I-A stands for. Chances are they will press the fast forward button on their Tivo remote faster than you can say CPSC in order to skip to the latest news update on the “Octamom” story.

I have come to the conclusion that the major reason this law will not be fixed to tolerable levels is because the general public takes what they hear from consumer advocates, government officials, and the media as gospel. There has been no public debate; no investigative report; no public outcry to get to the truth. Think about last Christmas season when the popular toy, Zhu Zhu Pet, was MISTAKENLY reported on every evening news program and in every major newspaper to contain unsafe levels of antimony in violation of the CPSIA. This report was released BEFORE the CPSC actually reviewed the case brought forth by the overzealous consumer advocate group, GoodGuide. Within about 24 hours after the story was released, the CPSC declared that the Zhu Zhu Pet was not in violation of any federal laws and was, in effect, safe. Do you think all the news outlets retracted their story? Did anyone offer an apology to the maker of the Zhu Zhu Pet? Do the Cleveland Cavaliers have a prayer to win a championship next year?

How can misinformation regarding lead in children’s product continue to spread and be consumed by the public while the truth is buried and ignored? How can painfully obvious common sense be trumped by outlandish, unfounded claims by the non-scientific community? Consider the audience.

According to a new survey released by the legal information website Findlaw.com, two-thirds of 1,000 American adults polled could not name a single current Supreme Court justice, and just one percent were able to name all nine sitting justices. I must admit, I am one of the 99% of Americans who could not name all nine without the help of Wikipedia. Now, here’s a stunner. From the 1,000 people polled, which justice was named most often? If you guessed Clarence Thomas, congratulations! If you are over the age of 40, there is a good reason you remember Clarence Thomas. The media made sure you wouldn’t forget about his confirmation hearings that took place 20 years ago. If you are under the age of forty, Google it.

The same thing is happening with the media coverage of the CPSIA. The facts are overlooked and only news-worthy sound bites are publicized.

The point I am trying to make is that as responsible, informed, voting Americans, we should not exercise blind faith as if our Congress always has our best interests in mind and the media is reporting the absolute truth. We owe it to ourselves to be informed citizens by doing our own research and reading a variety of media sources so that we may elect government officials into office who use common sense (and scientific facts) to make informed legislative decisions.

We must get Congress and the CPSIA to realize the damage the CPSIA is causing and fix it once and for all.

Please, do your research, GET THE FACTS, and spread the word!

Guest Blog by Bill Chiasson, Executive Vice President, COO of ETA/Cuisenaire, a division of A. Daigger & Company. ETA/Cuisneair has over 8,000 manipulative-based educational and supplemental materials for PreKindergarten and grades K-12 that enrich teaching and engage students in math, reading/language arts, and science.

Posted by the Staff of the Alliance for Children’s Product Safety

Read more here:
GUEST BLOG – Bill Chiasson: To the Media, CPSIA problems are spelled B-O-R-I-N-G

CPSIA – At First, I Thought The Onion Was Trying to be Funny. . . .

I think this is a parody, not a real news report. At least I think so. . . .

Senators protest against a public they say has become too bloated to efficiently populate the country.

WASHINGTON—At a time when widespread polling data suggests that a majority of the U.S. populace no longer trusts the federal government, a Pew Research Center report has found that the vast majority of the federal government doesn’t trust the U.S. populace all that much either.

According to the poll—which surveyed members of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches—9 out of 10 government officials reported feeling “disillusioned” by the populace and claimed to have “completely lost confidence” in the citizenry’s ability to act in the nation’s best interests.

“All the vitriol and partisan bickering in Congress has caused most Americans to form negative opinions of the U.S. government,” Pew researcher Amy Ratner said. “However, over the same time period, the government has likewise grown wary of U.S. citizens, largely due to their utter lack of foresight, laziness, and overall incompetence.”

Added Ratner, “And the fact that American Idol is still the No. 1 show on television doesn’t exactly make our government burst with confidence.”

Out of 100 U.S. senators polled, 84 said they don’t trust the U.S. populace to do what is right, and 79 said Americans are not qualified to do their jobs. Ninety-one percent of all government officials polled said they find citizens to be every bit as irresponsible, greedy, irrational, and selfishly motivated as government officials are.

Moreover, according to nearly 100 percent of respondents, Wal-Mart.

“It makes complete sense for Americans to lose faith in a government that has allowed lobbyists and special interests to take over Washington,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters. “That being said, you could see why Washington might likewise lose faith in a populace that apparently still suspects that its president is a secret Muslim who was not born in the United States.”

Citing the billions of dollars wasted annually on flavored water and boneless buffalo wings, the number of drunk-driving deaths each year, and the lack of citizen accountability for the rise of Kim Kardashian, government officials registered extremely low opinions of the American people overall.

“This is the same American populace that failed to prevent us from deregulating the banks that almost caused a complete economic meltdown last year,” Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) said. “Year after year, they elect terrible officials who make terrible decisions on their behalf. The fact that I, Jim Bunning, am a two-term U.S. senator really shows you just how far Americans have gone off the rails.”

“I wouldn’t trust anyone who voted me into office,” he added.

Government skepticism is not confined to legislators, though. A cross-sampling of the U.S. Supreme Court found that only 1 in 9 justices believe the general populace to be ethical. Their confidence that the American people can resist consuming the newest Burger King sandwich just because it’s there or at least keep it to one a week has also fallen to a 10-year low.

“They can’t even fill out their census forms, for crying out loud,” Gov. Butch Otter of Idaho said. “It’s only 10 questions long. We’re not talking about taking the SATs here. Jesus Christ, don’t get me started on the SATs.”

One typical respondent, President Barack Obama, said he found it hard to trust the judgment of U.S. citizens after recent events, including their decision to elect a president who promised health care reform and then come out against health care reform.

“How can I have hope for a nation that regularly protests tax cuts that directly benefit them?” Obama said. “Look, I’m not always perfect at my job, either, but I think I could make a halfway coherent comment on a YouTube video if I had to. Isn’t that basically all they do?

Added Obama, “At this point, the only positive thing I can say about the American people is that I’m pretty sure they’ve never rigged an election in their favor.”

Read more here:
CPSIA – At First, I Thought The Onion Was Trying to be Funny. . . .

CPSIA – Treatment of Section 101(b)(2) in the New Waxman Amendment

i have attached a conformed version of Section 101(b) reflecting the new Waxman amendment’s proposed changes for your reference.

The dilemma posed by the current Section 101(b)(2) is that exclusions to the lead standard are basically impossible to obtain. There have been several rejected exemption requests and much pleading by Nancy Nord and Anne Northup for changes providing flexibility.

Last December, Mr. Waxman (supposedly with input from Chairman Tenenbaum) launched a sneak effort to implement something called the “functional purpose” exemption to “solve” these issues. The original construct of this exemption applied to situations where the manufacturer could demonstrate that the lead served a “functional” purpose and could not be removed without consequences (not including economic loss). This provision would have permitted ATV manufacturers to assert the need to put lead in certain parts to strengthen the steel, for instance. The functional purpose concept derives from a similar procedure under the EU’s ROHS-WEEE and is also present in the treatment of electronics under the CPSIA.

Waxman’s functional purpose language generated howls of protest as the “solution” solved nothing for anyone. Later, the Commission could not agree on a functional purpose recommendation for its January 15h report, and the idea “died”.

In the new Waxman Amendment which emerged last week, a new version of the functional purpose exemption was introduced to modify Section 101(b)(2). You may find the conformed version of Section 101(b)(2) helpful in understanding how the new provision works.

My thoughts on the new language:

a. The limitations of the exemption process in Section 101(b)(1) are UNCHANGED. In other words, the problematic “any” language is still effective. The new functional purpose exception will be an exception to the exception. Get it?

b. The Section 101(b) structure which limits exceptions to specific products, materials (or component part, in the case of the functional purpose section) remains in place. The language does NOT permit exceptions by product class. You must apply product by product, material by material. The rule even specifies that each component must be individually considered. How many parts are in an ATV . . . .

c. The Commission is now allowed to act “on its own initiative” to exempt “a specific product, material, or component part”. A petitioner may also seek the same relief.

It is hard to imagine how this would take place – will a Commission of five people pick lucky companies or industries for random acts of kindness? Of course, the first products likely to be accorded this “on its own initiative” treatment would be books, ATVs and bikes because of political pressure. [Let's not call that "influence peddling".] More complex product categories, like school supplies (my industry), would be stuck without an effective means to seek exemption.

d. The process, regardless of who initiates it, will be subject to a notice and comment period. This is new and presumably is designed to enable consumer groups to “participate in” (read, slow down or obstruct) the exception process. You have to hand it to the authors of this provision – they found a way to make a slow, expensive and tedious process even worse.

e. The standard for obtaining a functional purpose exception has several parts (all of which must be satisfied) -

“(i) the product, material, or component part requires the inclusion of lead because it is not practicable or not technologically feasible to manufacture such product, component part, or material in accordance with subsection (a) by removing the excessive lead or by making the lead inaccessible.”

This clause has several tricky parts in it. First, the word “practicable” was supposedly chosen because of a Supreme Court decision holding that “practicable” implies consideration of economic factors. So bickering over what “practicable” means is almost certain under this provision. The legal standard will need to be developed to make this provision workable – another nice project for Cheryl Falvey and her CPSC legal department. No guidance has been provided on how much economic pain needs to be incurred before lead removal is deemed not “practicable”. Consider for instance the use of recycled metal for bike frames. When is removal of lead from bike frames not “practicable”? Each frame is presumably different. Virgin metal is available without lead. You figure it out, I can’t.

Let’s not forget that the amendment also uses the term “technologically feasible” as defined in CPSIA Section 101(d). The CPSIA definition omits any reference to economics – intentionally. So the phrase “is not practicable or not technologically feasible” means that it is either too expensive or impossible to remove lead. This makes no sense to me, as the term “practicable” with its advertised meaning incorporates technologically feasibility and makes inclusion of the latter term duplicative. If there is a reason to use both terms, I can’t figure it out. Readers?

In addition to the problematic standard of “practicable”, the petitioners must also demonstrate that it is both too expensive to remove the lead to levels below the standard AND also too expensive to make the part inaccessible. Since the standard for “too expensive” (not “practicable”) is not specified, this language means we must invite the CPSC, the Commission and (due to the notice and comment period) the general public and our competitors into our business processes. That rag-tag lot will get to decide whether the expense of money on the removal of lead from the subject product, material or component is “practicable”. Yes, that’s what it means – you must publicly expose your judgments and economic choices to the Commission for their feedback and approval. Presumably, this would require you to publicly disclose your costs to obtain the “not practicable” decision.

That really sounds like FUN! I can’t see a deterrent to submitting a petition . . . can you?

“(ii) the product, material, or component part is not likely to be placed in the mouth or ingested, taking into account normal and foreseeable use and abuse of such product, material, or component part by a child; and”

Two years ago, I might have thought this was reasonable language. In a world where logic prevails, this language is something that most companies could fairly easily (and probably already do) consider. However, after Ms. Tenenbaum’s testimony about rhinestones on September 10, 2009 in which she speculated about the ingestion of 50 rhinestones by a child, it is hard to predict which imaginary risk the CPSC will fixate on. Recent events suggest that “foreseeable” is now in the eyes of the beholder.

“(iii) an exception for the product, component part, or material will have no measurable adverse effect on public health or safety.”

This third plank in the exception standard is supposedly meant to connote that contact with a subject product which produces less than 1 micro-gram per deciliter change in blood lead levels (the smallest increment for measuring blood lead levels today) is okay. It does not say so explicitly but wink-wink-nudge-nudge, that’s what it means.

Unfortunately, the precision of this “standard” promises more than it delivers. There are few identifiable lead threats in children’s products that could foreseeably cause this kind of change in blood lead levels other than lead-in-paint (probably above 90 ppm, too) and lead in jewelry. So if each case must be argued and decided, isn’t the standard and the process some sort of sham? I think the difficulty and expense of proving the negative in this case is a strategy by the Dems to keep their ridiculous standard in place while appearing to be magnanimous in offering an exception process. Few companies will get exceptions.

Sadly, fear does not allow for the use of science. There’s a lot of hypocrisy here, too. Apparently, the risk from lead in handlebars of a bike is far more worrisome than lead in our air, water or food supply. Likewise, it must be far more serious than, say, lead-in-paint on cars and boats (both of which are perfectly legal). And for those cases which this law obsesses over, lead-in-substrate in children’s products, the zealots cannot agree on how to measure what’s safe – mainly because they don’t know. Let’s not forget that Commissioner Bob Adler wrote a lengthy paper )with 89 footnotes) on how there is NO safe level for lead. The non-scientists who now control this issue have even drafted a MOVING target for safety – it is dependent on what we can measure. If we can measure lead blood levels more precisely in the future, the exception standard will automatically tighten. Like a noose.

f. The Commission can require a warning label for those items afforded an exception under this strict standard. What? Are they going to warn us that the product is safe? No, it’s Proposition 65 creeping into federal law – apparently, the Dems think that the Commission may decide to warn the public that they weren’t able to rid these items of lead, even though they have determined in an investigation that the products are safe. Again, since the zealots think “there is no safe level for lead”, it is very scary for them to concede that anything could be safe if it contains lead. This is a belief system, stop trying to figure it out.

Btw, have any of you ever tried selling a children’s product with such a warning label? At our company, we would drop such an item rather than try to sell it. No one will buy such a product for their child or for use in their classroom. The imposition of a Prop. 65-style lead warning on a children’s product is a tacit ban.

g. The petitioner has the burden of proof in applying for an exception under this provision. That means a small business has to make the same case as a Big Business. Why not simply say that small businesses can’t have an exception under this provision?

The petitioner may utilize data submitted by other petitioners in making its case, but there is no requirement that such data be made publicly available. In recent cases, the submission of the petitioners has not always been made public.

h. The language allows a sunset date to be imposed for the exceptions, even though the very terms of the exception requires that the CPSC conclude that public health and safety will not be imperiled by sale of the product. I am made to understand that the motivation behind this illogical provision is that exceptions should not last forever. Why not? I think it’s the belief system again, or it could be some sense of unjust enrichment. In any event, the CPSC would be empowered to force the continued gratuitous erosion of a company’s cost structure for no particular reason other to remedy the offense of an exception to the rule.

i. The exception will have retroactive effect unless otherwise specified by the Commission. This sounds good . . . other than the fact that we have been shooting our businesses in the foot since August 2008. The ability to give retroactive effect to exceptions might have been valuable two years ago. To put it in an amendment now, two years too late, is an insult to the regulated community. Alternatively, it is yet more evidence of the absolute inability of Democratic legislators to even SIMULATE understanding of business issues under this law.

Next up – discussion of the Resale Shop Exception under Section 101(b)(3).

Read more here:
CPSIA – Treatment of Section 101(b)(2) in the New Waxman Amendment