CPSIA – Report Abusive Database Rule to Eric Cantor!

Today, Republican CPSC Commissioners Nancy Nord and Anne Northup, noting the stifled debate orchestrated by Democratic CPSC Commissioners on the final public database rule (up for a vote on November 17th) and the toxic impact of that rule on the business community, have proposed their own alternative rule on the database.

I will provide a link HERE as soon as it is available. I believe the CPSC is currently mud wrestling over whether the Nord/Northup alternative proposal can be shown to you . . . the public. I think the Dems don’t think you are mature enough to be able to read it. Perhaps when you’re older . . . .

Here is Nancy Nord’s blogpost and Anne Northup’s blogpost relating to their proposed new rule. I also want to commend Ms. Northup’s three other blogposts on this topic, beginning on October 27. It is gratifying to see Commissioners taking political risk to do the right thing. Both Ms. Nord and Ms. Northup are taking a stand here. Let’s hope that fighting breaks out on other issues, too. We need the help.

This proposal by two Republican Commissioners is yet more shocking evidence that at today’s CPSC, safety and market integrity is an entirely partisan issue. Frankly, I don’t understand this and find it all so outrageous. In my view, this cartoonish standoff is ENTIRELY the fault of the Democrats who are stone deaf to the legitimate concerns of the business community. The hollow words of Inez Tenenbaum committing to “dialogue” with stakeholders makes me want to scream.

Consider, for instance, that I testified at the hearing on the database on November 10, 2009 at the personal request of Matt Howsare, Tenenbaum’s then counsel (now her Chief of Staff). Ms. Tenenbaum purportedly wanted my feedback on this critical proposal, and as it was related to me, the agency needed more comments from the business community. Naively, I spent our company’s money to fly to Washington to accommodate this seemingly reasonable request. I am accepting Fool of the Year nominations at this time. . . .

This hearing took place almost exactly ONE YEAR AGO – plenty of time for Ms. Tenenbaum to absorb my testimony. Listen to my testimony – did the majority take ANY of my points seriously? According to Nancy Nord, she was not allowed to ask at the October 20th Commission meeting about CPSC Staff’s conclusion that the rule would have an insignificant impact on small business – the ENTIRE focus of my testimony in November 2009. Don’t kid yourself, staff conclusions like this are are driven from ABOVE – from Ms. Tenenbaum and her political patrons. Ms. Nord was gaveled silent by the majority party – they had heard enough, I guess. Other issues impacting business interests from a fairness standpoint were also ignored or blunted.

This kind of treatment is completely outrageous. This example of government-out-of-control explains why the public spoke so profoundly last Tuesday. Nevertheless, the people running the shop at the CPSC didn’t hear you on Election Day. We MUST stop the Dem’s plan – unless you want to be eaten alive by trial lawyers. Listen to my testimony – it’s a road map to litigation doom.

Eric Cantor has called for substantially increasing Congressional oversight of the activities of federal agencies which he says are “now actively working to enact [President Obama's] agenda through agency regulations”. Could Tenenbaum, Adler and Co. be doing JUST THAT at the CPSC right now? Hmmm.

Please WRITE ERIC CANTOR to tell him what you think. His fax number is 202-225-0011. Please post your letter as a comment to this blog.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Report Abusive Database Rule to Eric Cantor!

CPSIA – What Are We Trying Achieve?

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

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

Sean, boy are you right!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CPSIA – Stories from the Front (My "Vivid" Imagination)

783 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 27 days left until Election Day.

Have I ever mentioned how the CPSIA is strangling us to death slowly, death by a thousand cuts? I know the media and the “leaders” at the CPSC want me to put up bodies, my word and my reasoning are not enough. I also realize the body they want to see most of all is mine. Sorry, guys, I am working to prevent the delivery of that evidence to you. After all, anecdotes aren’t evidence. Somebody said that once . . . .

How about some other evidence (anecdotes) from our business in recent days?

a. Good news for the U.S. economy? We just added our SIXTH person to our growing department of compliance and safety folks. Please NOTE that the volume of work is going to EXPLODE when the testing stay is lifted, so these hires are just a starter. For many years, it was one or two people doing this job (including me). No longer . . . .

I know what you’re thinking, this obviously confirms how much we needed the extra safety people. In addition, it follows naturally that everyone is so, so, SOOOO much safer now that we have six pairs of eyes on the ball, not the one or two pairs we relied on for years. And those are jobs being created by Congress and the CPSIA – we must be so much better off . . . right?

Well, let’s take a look at those points.

First, are we adding jobs? No. The department is clearly growing, BUT those jobs do not create revenue. They create COSTS. We are adding those jobs without increasing new economic activity (we’re not growing) – in other words, our burden to conduct the same or less business is growing. That’s simply a drain. Even WORSE, as a company, it turns out we shrunk our headcount in 2007, 2008, 2009 AND 2010. So much for a recovery . . . . If we are shrinking our headcount this year but have a growth department like Compliance, what does that mean? It means that we are reducing our investment in revenue-generating activities like Marketing and Sales, and shifting our personnel investment into managing bureaucracy. To pay the cost of paper pushing, we are shrinking overall headcount.

What-a-stimulus-plan!

As for safety, we achieved a remarkable 26-year track record with far less investment and far fewer people. I firmly believe that more cooks in the kitchen sharply raise the probability of poorer results. Yes, more is NOT better. Why? Because the focus on our efforts is now COMPLIANCE, not safety. [We still work on safety first but it has a lot more competition from paper pushing.] Compliance monitoring and “gotchas” have become a perverse parlor game. Consider Sean Oberle’s recent meditation on Mood Rings. The subject of whether the rings are SAFE never comes up, it’s all about whether they fall within the rules or not. Safety is secondary in the CPSIA scheme – and everyone is losing sight of what we’re trying to accomplish. Paper stacked to the rafters won’t make anyone safer but then again, it’s comforting to have so many rules to follow.

Do I recall correctly that Mattel with its many CPSC-certified internal labs just recalled about 11 million units of toys? Hmmm.

b. Profit Prevention in Full Bloom at Learning Resources. We had two lessons in the joys of safety compliance money-burning in recent days. Consider these stories and their implications on incentive, motivation, ability to fund our operations, fairness and most importantly, safety.

First Case: We sold a longstanding product incorporating a motor to a mass market retailer with its own testing regime. Their testing regime includes CPSIA tests and is administered according to their specifications by a certified test lab of their choosing. The motor for that item was tested and failed for phthalates. We don’t know why – it has been made reliably without the six verboten phthalates since 2007 (many passed tests in our files). So we pulled a second sample from the same batch, and bingo, it passes. This happens all the time.

Of course, certified labs are never wrong. We are the only ones who are ever wrong. After all, the certified labs are CERTIFIED. No doubt that’s how Mattel keeps its shop so clean. Oops, they had some big recalls recently, didn’t they? I am confused . . . .

Anyhow, back to my story. Motor fails for phthalates and then passes. [Let's not dither over whether phthalates on internal components could even THEORETICALLY harm anyone. It's all about compliance.] Unfortunately for us, this nonsense took two weeks. So the customer penalized us by making the sale a guaranteed sale. If they don’t sell out, we lose.

Total cost – unknown. Was any of this cost budgeted for? Of course not. Is our customer happy? No. Could we control against this risk? Probably not, as the explanation of the “failed” test is not and never will be known. We are not making pharmaceuticals here, we make injection molded toys, but we are being held responsible for chemistry and testing results that have no real world significance.

And, it is worth mentioning, all this cost and disruption had NO impact on safety. It only reduced our profit and made us miserable.

Second Case: Another motor case. In the mania over safety and compliance, many formerly minor “gotcha’s” have become elevated in signficance. This time, we were trying to mollify a customer over EMC approval of a motor. Electrical motors emit a frequency, apparently, which is regulated. You know, the government doesn’t want our motor-powered toy to bring down a plane. We are required to test several of our products, sometimes even calculators. In this case, the motor failed . . . although we have no record of planes crashing after several years of sales of this toy and its motor. Our customer then hired a consultant at its expense to tell us how to “fix” our motor. The result – we were told to add two resistors to the motor, which we did, but then it was too weak to power our toy.

Then we had to find another motor. This took time and finally, we found another motor and had to have it retested. This entire process took two months. Once testing was complete, we were so late with this Xmas order that we were forced to bring in inventory by air freight to make it up to the customer. This cost about $15,000 in air freight and testing costs were an estimated $5-6,000 more. Think of how safe the planes are now!

This customer is a big customer of ours and if we didn’t air in product for them, they told us they would have cut us off.

We had a great relationship with the customer before this interaction. How do you think they feel about us now? Do you think they respect us as much? Do you think they believe we “know what we’re doing” because our motor failed an obscure and meaningless test? Does it matter that it is basically impossible for a terrestrial toy of this magnitude to influence the operation of a plane miles up in the air? No matter what, we look bad and we lost all of our profit and more on this ordeal, not to mention our good name.

And no one was made safer.

Thanks Congress! Thanks CPSC! Thanks Democrats! Can’t wait to show my appreciation in the future. I’ll find a way.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Stories from the Front (My "Vivid" Imagination)

CPSIA – Besides THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, How was the Play?

776 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 34 days left until Election Day.

The Cato Institute published its study of the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act yesterday entitled: “‘Consumer Safety’ Bill Could Boomerang Against U.S. Manufacturers”. I have written about this latest self-destructive attack by Congress on our economy many times in the past.

[I am beginning to think of this Congress as some form of national auto-immune disease. Is there a pill we can take to get rid of it? If only . . . . The "pill" is called voting on November 2nd.]

Here’s the conservative think tank’s take on this legislation in a nutshell:

“Americans damaged by faulty products, whether made abroad or domestically, should be able to seek compensation through the courts. But the approach advocated by supporters of the FMLAA would not solve the problem. It would create a false hope of collection for damages while bypassing existing procedures that have proven to work in most cases. The approach would potentially violate constitutional protections available to citizens and non-citizens alike as well as existing commercial agreements with other nations. It could potentially disrupt global manufacturing supply chains, putting American production and employment in jeopardy.”

Now that’s a good reason to vote sponsor Betty Sutton (D-OH) back into office, isn’t it?

But then there’s the inflamed EU, Canada, WTO, importers, blah blah blah. Who cares? Not this Congress. I am told now that the FMLAA will not be addressed before the Election, but watch out for the lame duck session.

Nice of Congress to keep us on our toes with threatening legislation pending all the time. Really nice. I wonder if there’s time to send out another solicitation for funds for the Republicans tonight . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – Besides THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, How was the Play?

CPSIA – WARNING: Spine Alert!

761 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 50 days left until Election Day.

Imagine pushing back on a regulatory agency. Imagine protesting demands for a knee-jerk recall of an item without a demonstrated (as opposed to asserted) substantial product hazard. Imagine someone standing up to the CPSC. Imagine . . . .

Okay, it didn’t happen here. But Elfe Juvenile Products did zing the CPSC in its letter resisting a mimic recall of strollers by Health Canada. It even took them to task for a crib recall – wow! Without coming out and using pejorative terms, only implying them, Elfe accused Health Canada of “blindly” following the CPSC and conceding the authority of the U.S. agency. That can’t be a compliment . . . .

“’My review of the applicable Canadian legislation does not reveal any mandate given to Health Canada to blindly accept decisions made by an administrative agency in a foreign jurisdiction. To do so, would, of course, be an unacceptable submission to the sovereignty of another country,’ Ivan Bern, Elfe’s general counsel, wrote to Health Canada on Jan. 19.”

Ouch. The next day our highly reactive agency announced a recall of 1.5 million strollers for laceration hazards and fingertip amputations.

Have you ever scratched your head and asked why the stroller and crib folks aren’t pushing back? Well, confronting a federal agency that has already sic’ced the U.S. Attorney on some of its hapless victims (notably, Daiso) and rabid State Attorneys General like Illinois’ Lisa Madigan is to tempt a deluge of litigation all over the country, merited or not. And they are certainly not above manipulating the press for the kind of hysterical headlnes certain to kill your business. Look at baby slings. Bankruptcy is your likely fate if you try to defend yourself. Never litigate with someone who has a printing press, as they say.

Well, one of them finally spoke up. The day after the U.S. stroller recall, Health Canada posted a recall for the Elfe-distributed stroller for the same hazard. “‘In our opinion, there is no ‘trend’ to be discerned, unless it is that of 1,499,993 consumers acting responsibly, and possible seven instances where the goal of perfection in human behaviour was demonstrated to be unattainable,’ Elfe’s general counsel told Health Canada.” Not that it mattered what they thought – Health Canada proceeded with a recall immediately anyhow.

To add to the strangeness of this interaction, Elfe was also a distributor of Simplicity cribs at the time. Those cribs started crib mania at the CPSC and also created a craze over “responsible parties” after Simplicity was driven into bankruptcy. The CPSC busily talked down Simplicity cribs, labeling them “dangerous”. No statistical analysis of the use of these cribs was released to my knowledge, just an injury count over many years. [I raised three children with dropside cribs without incident. I was also raised in a dropside crib to my knowledge. Although some people think I was dropped on my head as a child, that's not the crib's fault.]

Consider what happened next in Canada: “Following these statements, Elfe, the former distributor of Simplicity products in Canada, provided different advice to Canadian parents, telling them to make sure the crib was assembled properly. And ‘if the drop-side is installed upside down or not securely attached,’ Elfe recommended parents reinstall the drop-side the proper way with new hardware, to be provided free of charge by the company. A few days later, Health Canada posted Elfe’s voluntary recall on its website, saying the department had assessed Elfe’s metal retrofit kit and determined that it did not adequately correct the hazard posed by the drop-side crib. The newly released private correspondence reveals Elfe didn’t think this course of action was needed, accusing Health Canada again ‘deferring to the CPSC’s unilateral actions’ in the face of negative press.” [Emphasis added]

Frankly, this is the closest the press has come to reporting the truth about the CPSC and the mania spawned by the CPSIA. The CPSC is feeding public perceptions of danger where the agency formerly took the view that consumers bore some responsibility to use their equipment properly and to maintain it in good condition. Nowadays, these issues are twisted into asserted “substantial product hazards” and are accompanied by a government-sponsored negative publicity campaign (think of all the Good Morning America appearances you have seen Tenenbaum make). The agency almost blatantly dares companies to push back – with Lisa Madigan, Jerry Brown and other State Attorney General thugs waiting to pounce. The toxic commercial environment in the U.S. is not enough to satiate them – they must cross borders to spread ill will and poisonous markets to other countries.

There is no way to argue with this kind of tyranny. Their assertions are considered “findings”. The political nature of such “findings” is rarely outed. Even when the company itself initiates a recall, the agency implicitly claims it as its own (like a skin on the wall) and announces it as one of its consumer “triumphs”. These recalls exist on the CPSC website as precedent undistinguished from other recalls – influencing the decision-making of other companies and eroding the confidence of consumers. With the CPSC imprimatur, recalls are taken as signs of further corporate bad behavior.

Hats off to Elfe for at least trying to push back. I wish they had more company. The only way to end this kind of regulatory tyranny is to expose it and to resist corporate slander at the hands of a rogue agency.

Read more here:
CPSIA – WARNING: Spine Alert!

CPSIA – Wingnuts Against Cadmium

740 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are 71 days left until Election Day.

On Thursday, in an unannounced Federal Register notice (you all read the Fed. Reg. for fun like me, right?), the CPSC announced that a petition had been filed by four esteemed consumer groups demanding that the CPSC and EPA issue rules against the presence of cadmium in children’s products, especially “toy jewelry”. Not doubt this effort was coordinated with Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) to assist her in her reelection effort. The four consumer groups are the Sierra Club, Empire State Consumer Project, Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticides (hmmm) and, our ole’ pal, the Center for Environmental Health. Although the petition has not resulted in action by the agency YET, they have requested comments on the petition. Goodie, something else to waste our time on!

The only reason I know about this event is that Bloomberg.com wrote about it last Wednesday. I am sure you monitor Bloomberg for sneak requests for comment by the agency, just like me. If you go the CPSC website, good luck finding a reference to this important Fed. Reg. publication. Oh well, the CPSIA already legislates that we must be telepathic anyhow.

The cadmium mania has nothing to do with health or safety. Even the wingnuts behind this petition are unable to cite a single injury EVER from cadmium in children’s products. They ask that rules be implemented “before a child dies or is seriously injured”. Well, since this regulation never existed previously and cadmium has been used as a trace component in jewelry for hundreds of years, the argument that this is a “real” risk does not impress me. I hold a degree in engineering but who am I to tell the CPSC how to do math. What do you suppose the probability of injury might be if the instances are ZERO over hundreds of years involving literally trillions of human interactions? Pretty high, I guess . . . .

They better be pretty high, if the CPSC actually cares what the law says. Ha, I gave up on that a long time ago, but for you devotees, here’s the deal. I have written about this many times already – the suthority to recall consumer products derives from the FHSA which restricts the agency’s authority to “imminent hazards”. Section 12(a) of the FHSA provides this definition: “As used in this section, and hereinafter in this Act, the term ‘imminently hazardous consumer product’ means a consumer product which presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury.” [Emphasis added] Is it even theoretically possible for a consumer product containing cadmium to meet this standard if there are exactly zero documented injuries – ever? Of course, we have been told that “anecdotes are not evidence” . . . unless perhaps a consumer group is dishing out the (imaginary) anecdotes.

And then there’s the mania in the press. The press seems no better able to evaluate this threat than any of the other urban legends underlying the CPSIA. One wonders how they assess other risks . . . like swimming pool deaths. Oh yeah, real deaths are not a problem if the activity is really fun, like swimming which claims hundreds of children’s lives annually. Better to put our resources into cadmium testing – since there are no recorded events of cadmium injury from consumer products. Consider this quote from Bloomberg: “Retailers such as Dress Barn Inc. and Claire’s Boutiques Inc. have recalled necklaces, earrings and bracelets this year after finding cadmium in the products. McDonald’s Corp. offered $3 refunds in June to customers who bought “Shrek” drinking glasses with high levels of cadmium in the paint.” [Emphasis added] I have pointed out ad nauseum that the CPSC admits that the Shrek glasses are SAFE but given that the recall went forward and no one remembers what happened, those glasses had to be really dangerous, right??? According to Bloomberg, that seems to be true.

The petition features the usual hyperbolic description of an imaginary crisis with hysterical references to a “rising tide” of incidents (poisonings) and unfounded accusations of manufacturers “substituting” cadmium for lead. Shame that facts hardly matter anymore. They pull out all the stops to embellish their case. If repeated enough, this kind of reasoning becomes accepted as a truth, just like “no safe levels of lead”. Our “leaders” seem prone to this kind of duping.

My favorite part of the petition is the assertion of the dire threat posed by cadmium. Again, there are no reported injuries from cadmium EVER in consumer products. The CSPC admitted at last February’s ICPHSO meeting that their only toxicological data on cadmium relates to workplace exposure (generally airborne). According to Wikipedia, two big sources of cadmium for humans are food and cigarette smoke. The CPSC has literally NO data on risk from consumer products – principally because there is NO evidence that there is any danger. Given the data, they made the judgment that gathering the data was a waste of money (back when people cared about such things). The most famous incident of widespread cadmium poisoning related to scandalous industrial pollution in Japan over many years. That’s a far cry from the situation confronting America today.

Should we crush the toy jewelry market or pummel the rest of us with high testing costs and other legal disruptions because our regulators are unable to distinguish between industrial pollution in Japan on a massive scale, and enamel or jewerly solder with traces of cadmium in it?

According to the wingnuts, yes, we should.

And I remind you – we have 71 days left until Election Day. I recommend that you give generously to candidates that don’t come from Mars, have some semblance of common sense and commit in blood to oppose the junk science movement that has taken over the CPSC and Congress. Work the neighborhoods, greet people at train stations and then go vote in droves.

If we hurry, we might get something done before the CPSC turns the screw one more rotation.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Wingnuts Against Cadmium

CPSIA – The Great Set-Up

For those who had better things to do than wade through my comment letters last week, I want to highlight a few points.

The two CPSC rulemakings up for comment on August 3rd were on component testing and on the so-called “15 Month Rule”. Both are very important rules and both have been long discussed. The “15 Month Rule” relates to testing frequency and defines a “reasonable testing program”. The long controversy over these rules relates to their acknowledged potential to be TERMINAL to small businesses. This was the principal reason that Inez Tenenbaum delayed issuing these rules on time in November 2009 as required by law (they can vary from law when it suits their purposes, please note). She called a two-day workshop for December 2009 for the purpose of gathering the feedback of stakeholders. I was asked to appear as a panelist, as were two of my colleagues. These sessions were taped (they were able to hear all the feedback and digest it).

So here’s a few things you should know:

a. Component testing will not be useful except for the largest companies and for those rare situations when everything falls neatly into place. The rules as written are too complex, too demanding (full traceability of all components is REQUIRED, which is delusional and completely unnecessary for such simple, innocuous products) and far too risky. The liability risk associated with these very challenging rules will scare off all but the most foolhardy or ignorant companies.

b. Component testing relies on a fantastic assumption, namely that component tests (if desired) will even be available. Why don’t we assume they will be available for every paint and for every plastic pellet on the planet? Does that solve the problem? I dare say not. There are many convenient examples of likely missing test reports – think of aluminum foil in a science kit, for instance. If you are missing only a few component certificates, any benefit from the rule is lost.

c. The “15 Month Rule” was apparently NOT CHANGED from the draft discussed in December 2009. In other words, despite the agency’s “misgivings” about the rule way back then, and even after two days of comments by more than 200 stakeholders, the agency ended up in the same problematic place – and put the rule out for comment now. Of course, they filled in some holes (see below). In my opinion, this means either that the “feedback” process was a complete sham (the agency gave the appearance of “listening” but did as it pleased anyhow) or else that the agency lacks the temerity to tell Congress that the CPSIA is simply screwed up. Having ducked that punch, the CPSC instead opted to put you and me out of business.

If they were unable or unwilling to listen in the last nine months, I have absolutely no confidence they will listen this time. That bodes badly for me and for you. Consider the following . . . .

d. Using the numbers from the CPSC’s rulemaking, I derived that the agency wants me to spend $10,000 per item per year in testing costs (all-in). We have 1,500 items. Do the math – that’s $15 million per year in testing. This is for a company with ONE RECALL OF 130 PIECES TO ITS NAME IN 26 YEARS. This is also the rule regulating a “risk” that killed ONE CHILD and MAY HAVE INJURED THREE CHILDREN . . . in 11 years. [You can review the math in my comment letter. It's their numbers, not mine.] Do you think this might be a touch excessive? No matter, that’s our problem to resolve.

I can’t get this $15 million number out of my head. Do you realize that this rule could become the law shortly? Hey, HTA members, do you get it yet? All that nuzzling up to the CPSC, all their tears over your plight – this rule shuts your doors. If they push forward on this rule (as I anticipate), we will all face a very daunting choice – do we close our doors, sell our companies, go into another business or, breath deep, knowingly break the law by ignoring this rule? Is this a surprise to anyone? This has to be the world’s stupidest rule – and we are left with the ultimate Hobson’s Choice. Thanks CPSC.

Let’s not forget that Bob Adler spoke in stern tones last February when he said he would not vote to extend the stay on the testing and certification rules again. In the absence of further Commission action, the testing stay lapses on February 11, 2011. This rulemaking is intended to put the agency in position to let the stay expire. The next step would be enforcement of this new rule. Ms. Tenenbaum has publicly announced that 2011 will be all about enforcement – you have been warned, the pogroms are coming.

Do you get it . . . yet? IF the agency cannot wrap up this rulemaking in time, it will need to extend the stay. Arguably, that problem is on its doorstep right now. Even they understand that businesses need time to plan, and without final rules, no planning or preparation can take place. IF they cannot get this done in time (soon), they will have to extend the stay AGAIN. This would be incredibly damning of the agency, as it would be an apparent concession that the awful CPSIA cannot be implemented, perhaps ever. Of course, that only confirms what you and I have known for a long time – the law can’t be fixed by this agency and is fatally flawed. In the absence of dynamic Congressional action, we’re all toast (this is old news).

I urge you to take this battle to the political arena. The CPSC and the Dem-controlled Congress have shown that they just won’t listen. They don’t care about our problems. I say that if they are intent in putting us out of business, all of our productive businesses making contributions to our community and our markets every day, then it’s time to return the favor. We need to put THEM out of business first.

Time’s a-wastin’.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The Great Set-Up

GUEST BLOG – BOSTON GLOBE WRITER TAKES NOTICE OF ALL THOSE CPSC RECALLS

Rick has blogged in this space about how the onslaught of recalls by the CPSC is numbing to consumers. Boston Globe writer Sylvia Pagán Westphal has taken notice in a column over the weekend:

Boston Globe

The safety scare
Separate dangerous products from those that pose little risk
By Sylvia Pagán Westphal | July 7, 2010

IF YOU’RE the parent of a young child and want to be very scared, don’t waste time looking for horror movies on TV. Just go to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission’s website for child product recalls. You won’t be able to sleep for days.

The site features an interminable selection of common children’s products that have been recalled. Some of the depictions are downright gruesome: in cases of defective cribs, for example, there are pictures of baby dolls with necks pinned down between rails, or of their little faces pressed against a mattress, as if suffocating. The intent is, to be sure — for I see no other reason to scare the wits out of an unsuspecting, Internet-roaming mother — to jolt parents into action if they own one of the products.

One recent afternoon, I was clicking through the recalls page when I realized, to my dismay, that during my 9-year stint as a parent I have owned several of the featured items. My colorful rainforest-themed baby swing was there, and so was one of my cribs. The baby sling I used with my son was recalled after three babies suffocated in 2009. The kinds of bath seats I used (and loved) with my daughter aren’t sold anymore, following various recalls.

I never found out about these announcements. Had I taken the time to register each product I might have heard from the manufacturers, but I didn’t do it, and neither do most of the parents I know. Some pediatricians’ offices and stores post selected recall sheets, and there is an e-mail list from Consumer Product Safety Commission one can opt into, but with over 100 of these announcements per year it’s hard to keep track of the information.

Part of the problem is that recall announcements don’t explicitly distinguish between problems with products that are truly dangerous and defective versus products with sub-optimal design that, when used properly, pose little risk. For example, the commission recently recalled a bed because one child got his head stuck in its storage compartment. Not to take away from that kid’s pain, but I have numerous compartments in my home where my children’s heads would fit if they tried hard enough.

In a way, some of the announcements appear to be directed at shielding us from our own parental incompetence. Millions of baby bath seats and walkers are no longer sold due to drownings and falls suffered by babies who were basically left unsupervised. The recent high-profile recalls of drop-side cribs were prompted by deaths that, in some cases, were caused by cribs that were incorrectly put together or were subjected to shoddy home repairs.

Don’t get me wrong: to the extent that these recalls remove poorly designed products from the market the efforts should be praised. If motels and hotels are forced to carry safer cribs, that’s a good thing. But the Consumer Product Safety Commission and other safety advocacy groups should be mindful of putting each recall into perspective, so as not to unnecessarily scare the public. For example, the multiple recalls (and likely national ban) on drop-side cribs comes after 32 documented deaths over the last 10 years and millions of cribs sold. That’s surely 32 deaths too many, but more children die each year choking on food.

There is a real downside to a system that feeds into our nation’s growing safety paranoia, which isn’t healthy either. Many of my overseas friends have a hard time understanding our obsession with safety — we put locks on our toilet seats, cover the corners of tables with rubber guards, and use hand sanitizer with ever-intensifying zeal. Taking that baby walker away, just like covering the table corners, is a bit like avoiding air travel for fear of crashing, while still driving a car every day. The world is a very dangerous place to raise a child. Leave the house and there are hard edges, pointy rocks, and steep inclines everywhere. As much as we’d like to, we just can’t childproof those too.

Sylvia Pagán Westphal is a regular contributor to the Globe opinion pages.

Posted to Rick’s Blog by Alliance for Children’s Product Safety Staff

Read more here:
GUEST BLOG – BOSTON GLOBE WRITER TAKES NOTICE OF ALL THOSE CPSC RECALLS

CPSIA – Recall of Safe Products Continues to Reverberate

The national convulsions (call it “brain softening”) induced by the CPSC’s action in forcing McDonald’s to recall admittedly SAFE Shrek drinking glasses continued to spin out of control today. Following their usual election year script of harshly dealing with invented crises to impress the easily-duped public, Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak, two Democratic leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, sent letters today to McDonald’s and the manufacturer of the glasses, ARC International, demanding information to blow this non-issue up into a mega-crisis.

Before I summarize how Waxman and Stupak worked to spread regulatory disease far and wide, I think we all owe a big THANK YOU to the CPSC for so vigilantly protecting us from these safe products. There is no doubt that we were all victims of a false sense of security, not knowing that atoms of cadmium might be lurking on the outside of drinking glasses. Of course, cadmium atoms also lurk in our food, in our water, in our air, in our dirt AND on countless glasses in our homes sold over preceding decades without incident – but, heck, that’s a little too science-y, don’t you think? Only by exposing that these glasses are SAFE while at the VERY SAME TIME pushing for a highly-publicized recall and resulting media panic, did the CPSC reveal that we were actually safe without even knowing it – and yet they STILL acted to protect us! What a great bunch of guys and gals we have at the CPSC, we are so lucky. No really, thank YOU Consumer Product Safety Commission!

Mssrs. Waxman and Stupak sent off two letters demanding lots of “incriminating” information, such as:

• A list of all manufacturers and distributors that supply McDonald’s with children’s products. McDonald’s interest in keeping its suppliers’ identities confidential as a trade secret is no never mind. After all, the glasses they recalled are SAFE, so you can’t take ANY chances. And let’s not forget the FACT that the other McDonald’s items are NOT suspected of ANY violation of ANY law. This is Mr. Waxman’s wizardry to keep us all so safe. . . .
• A list of all the “steps” McDonald’s takes to ensure that children’s products do not contain hazardous materials. The FACT that the CPSC has declared these glasses SAFE does not apparently matter in this inquiry, raising the question of what Waxman and Stupak mean by “hazardous materials”. Presumably then, the presence of an atom of cadmium might meet their “standard” for hazardous materials. In utopia, there is no cadmium. Waxman and Stupak represent the 1st and 8th Congressional Districts of Utopia, respectively.
• The identity of the supplier of the enamel on the SAFE glasses. This identity had previously been withheld by ARC, showing character by attempting to keep the crisis away from an innocent supplier. As ARC said in a recent newspaper report, “[it] could have been any glass company. . . . We all do the same thing using materials from the same suppliers.”

I find it ironic that the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is none other than Michael Burgess. Burgess is a doctor (M.D.). Maybe he has a sense of what constitutes an actual hazard to human health. If he does, I hope he shares it with his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. . . .

Hey, let’s not get too paranoid here. No one is going to pay attention to this mass hysteria or change how they regard the federal safety laws. This mega-screwing of two reputable companies over admittedly SAFE products is not relevant to the rest of us. Why? They’ll never be interested in us because we all make . . . SAFE PRODUCTS.

Oh, crap.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Recall of Safe Products Continues to Reverberate

CPSIA – A Page Torn from the CPSIA Playbook

The Dems’ Central Command tore a page from Waxman’s CPSIA playbook and, according to the New York Times, is apparently advising Democratic candidates running for Congress to avoid town hall meetings. All the better to avoid feeling the wrath of their constituents, you know, the people they represent. The NYT article reveals the strategy:

“The reception that Representative Frank Kratovil Jr., a Democrat, received here one night last week as he faced a small group of constituents was far more pleasant than his encounters during a Congressional recess last summer. Then, he was hanged in effigy by protesters. This time, a round of applause was followed by a glass of chilled wine, a plate of crackers and crudités as he mingled with an invitation-only audience at the Point Breeze Credit Union . . . . The sentiment that fueled the rage during those Congressional forums is still alive in the electorate. But the opportunities for voters to openly express their displeasure, or angrily vent as video cameras roll, have been harder to come by in this election year. If the time-honored tradition of the political meeting is not quite dead, it seems to be teetering closer to extinction. Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority in the House, only a handful held town-hall-style forums as legislators spent last week at home in their districts. It was no scheduling accident.”

Here’s the Dems’ genius strategy in a nutshell: last year – hung in effigy; this year – invitation-only, closed door “feedback” sessions. Problem solved!

This master stroke allows the Dems to stage manage a myth, perpetuating the illusion that everything is A-Okay. Of course, this brings to mind Henry Waxman’s refusal to hold CPSIA hearings for almost two years and his staff’s perpetual rebuffing of any criticism of the “perfect” CPSIA. See no evil, hear no evil – therefore there must not be any evil . . . right?

The big question is who will be fooled by the Dems “hiding in plain sight” strategy. Does anyone actually believe that avoiding the people will keep the Dems in control of Congress?

It’s hard not to feel that the Dems think they are ruling us, not governing as our representatives, and aren’t accountable for their actions. It seems the height of arrogance to not stand before constituents and talk about the issues of the day. Perhaps they think we are too dim to remember what we are pissed off about.

Just like the CPSIA. Does anyone remember why we are mad about this law??? Someone needs to remind me . . . .

So the Dems are going to avoid you and your problems. This kind of treatment makes voter anger turn into voter rage. Let’s keep this in mind as we head to the polls. When the Dems are out of office, they can see how they like being ignored.

Read more here:
CPSIA – A Page Torn from the CPSIA Playbook

« Previous Page — Next Page »