CPSIA – The Axis of Misinformation

CPSC Spokesman Scott Wolfson wants you to read an article: Scott_Wolfson: If #opengov #gov20 are important to u, pls read this LATimes column: http://t.co/MrrgGwO #SaferProducts.gov #cpsc  [From Scott Wolfson's Twitter feed] Wolfson refers you to a hatchet job by David Lazarus of the LA Times  on the CPSIA Product Database. I have taken issue with the blather emitted from Lazarus’ PC in the past.  In his latest example of irresponsible journalism, endorsed by the CPSC, Lazarus displays his studied ignorance of the issues relating to the database. His lack of research certainly didn’t prevent him from making declarative statements. Wolfson wanted to be sure you didn’t miss it. Lazarus ponders what the issues could possibly be with the controversial database:  ” You’ve got to wonder why businesses are fighting so hard to keep this resource away from consumers. Is it because their fears are justified that we’ll misuse this tool (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding)? Or is it because the last thing they want is a consuming public armed with the latest and most thorough information on the safety of their goods? And if it’s the latter, you might now ask, what are they trying to hide? ” I cannot think of any objections to the database other than self-interest, can you?  It’s all a conspiracy, as anyone on the Left can tell you.  Businesses have so much to hide!  And did you know that evil billionaires are against the database?  Lazarus sorts it all out:  “Koch Industries — run by billionaires Charles and David Koch, who are active in conservative causes — also reported spending more than $200,000 lobbying against creation of the database.”  Lazarus asserts that it is significant that Members of Congress aligned against the database also received campaign contributions from businesses.  [Can you find a single member of Congress who has NOT taken contributions from businesses or business people?  Just curious.]  Lazarus notes that both Reps. Emerson and Pompeo received contributions from business people who are ALSO against the database.  It’s all making sense now . . . . Perhaps it was an oversight, but Lazarus fails to mention that the folks on the Left who so vigorously defend the database as implemented have been richly financed by TRIAL LAWYERS.  Rep. Henry Waxman raised more than $165,000 in 2010 from lawyers (11% of his total raise).  In fact, his top PAC contributor was the American Association for Justice , a group of plaintiff’s attorneys actively opposing tort reform.  He also received individual contributions from AAJ lobbyists .  Rep. Jan Schakowsky raised a mere $224,000 from lawyers in 2010 (about 15% of her raise).  Ditto for AAJ support.  Poke around on OpenSecrets.org to check out your other favorites in Congress.  It goes without saying that the support Waxman, Schakowsky and their ilk lavish on the database has NOTHING to do with campaign contributions by trial lawyers.   It all comes from the heart, cloaked in white.  Any idea who pays the bill for all the litigation initiated by the AAJ and its members?  Hint:  it’s not Waxmn or Schakowsky. No Lazarus article would be complete without the quotes of Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America.  The strangely influential Weintraub is the Left’s favorite mouthpiece on the CPSIA.  Here she tries a new angle to preserve the database, the “sunk cost” argument:  “The thing that’s so insidious is that the database is already up and running,  This would basically waste all the money and resources that have gone into creating the database.”  Insidious! That thrifty Rachel, she literally weeps over government waste.  Of course, the database is not controversial simply because it exists; the principal reason the issue lingers on is that Lefties like Weintraub and Bob Adler insisted on unfair administrative procedures that create unreasonable risks for manufacturers unrelated to actual product hazards, like brand slander, misidentified products, lack of accountability by complaint filers, manipulation of civil disputes and unbalanced data creating misleading commercial impressions. These problems are well-documented but have apparently escaped Lazarus’ beady-eyed (in)attention. The Axis of Misinformation is at work here.  You have the ignorant journalist (perhaps intentionally so or at a minimum, biased against manufacturers and disinterested in their POV), the shrill consumer “advocate” and the self-serving agency spokesman whose job is to manipulate how we feel about the CPSC (irrespective of reality or the “truth”).  CPSC as PR agency is offensive to me.  That’s not its function and besides, I think it’s dangerous to me as a consumer.  As a practitioner noted this week in private correspondence:  ” CPSC stacks the deck by creating alarming recall notices that do not really put hazards in perspective for readers, nor does the agency give consumers enough information to determine whether the amounts that they wind up indirectly paying for the costs of recalls are justified, especially when those costs are spread out to affect products that have not been recalled and present no risk. Hazards and risks are generally overstated, and you will never see any mention of costs to the public even though, as we all know, there is, after all, no free lunch .” It is worth noting that I hear complaints from the CPSC through various channels when they object to the portrayals in this space.  It’s so unfair that we have freedom of speech in this country.  No doubt that makes the job of regulating all of us idiots so much more difficult.  Still, if I get to exercise my freedom of speech, so does Wolfson.  Go ahead and read Lazarus.  It is informative in a way.  It will take you less than 30 seconds to recognize the shoddy journalism and the slanted, biased presentation of a one-sided story.  Consider the source of this lead – Scott Wolfson and the CPSC.  As I said, it’s informative.

View post:
CPSIA – The Axis of Misinformation

CPSIA – American Job Creators (Remember When We Did That?)

The House Majority Leader wants to know how the CPSC and the CPSIA are affecting your business.  They have a website set up for you to download everything you know about the misconceived CPSIA and resulting three year nightmare.  The first agency listed on the web page is the CPSC. Have some fun with this!  Feel free to post your insights here, too.

Read the original post:
CPSIA – American Job Creators (Remember When We Did That?)

CPSIA – Futile Provision or Gimme for Big Biz?

In response to my blogpost on the “Functional Purpose” exception so desperately desired by the Dems (Waxman and his Waxmanis, plus the Dem CSPC Commissioners) as the “solution” to the inflexibility of the CPSIA restrictions on lead, I am informed that some people think the door is still cracked open for exclusions. I must disagree. Here is the language on the functional purpose exception from the last published version of ECADA :  “(1) FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE EXCEPTION.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission, on its own initiative or upon petition by an interested party, shall grant an exception to the prohibition in subsection (a) for a specific product, class of product, material, or component part if the Commission, after notice and comment in accordance with subparagraph (B), determines that—(i) the product, class of product, material, or component part requires the inclusion of lead because it is not practicable or not technologically feasible to manufacture such product, class of product , material, or component part , as the case may be, in accordance with subsection (a) by removing the excessive lead or by making the lead inaccessible; (ii) the product, class of product, material, or component part is not likely to be placed in the mouth or ingested, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of such product, class of product, material, or component part by a child; and (iii) an exception for the product, class of product, material, or component part will have no measurable adverse effect on public health or safety, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse.”  I have added color to the key words in this section.  In blue , I have highlighted that the exemption will ONLY apply to those products or materials which “require” the inclusion of lead.  In yellow , I have highlighted the two parts of the exception, namely cases where the inclusion of lead is not practicable or not technologically feasible.  Who will benefit from this provision, and how will they benefit? First, to take advantage of this provision, you must demonstrate that your product “requires the inclusion of lead”.  When might lead be required?  According to the CPSC Staff in their recently released report on the ”technological feasibility” of 100 ppm lead , no products or components under 600 ppm concentration requires lead:  “Staff has found no intentional uses of lead in materials at concentrations at or near any of the three statutory lead limits (i.e., 100 ppm, 300 ppm, or 600 ppm). Therefore, staff does not believe that children’s product manufacturers intentionally design or make products or components with the maximum allowable lead content because lead concentration near the maximum limit would have no benefit or purpose to the product or the manufacturer.”  No benefit whatsoever of trace lead content.  Who would have guessed that?! Thus, this provision only applies to items, components or materials well over 600 ppm lead.  For those of you on the sidelines hoping that this will save your trace levels of lead in components, like metals in bicycle components, sorry!  It’s not for you. I believe this provision is only intended for a very limited list of components – namely, brass, metal alloys or possibly rhinestones.  In reality, it’s just for metal alloys which actually require lead as a component, like engine components (or brass).  There will be almost no argument possible where there is a market substitute that the CPSC thinks is adequate. They get to run your business now, don’t forget. Rhinestones are so done. For those items, components or materials that make it through the “requires the inclusion of lead” filter, the provision then further limits coverage where avoiding the inclusion of lead is not “practicable” or technologically feasible.  The above-referenced report states the opinion of CPSC Staff that NOTHING requires the inclusion of lead as defined by the CPSIA:  “Based upon this analysis, the staff could not recommend that the Commission make a determination that it is not technologically feasible for a product or product category to meet the 100 ppm lead content limit for children’s products under section 101(d) of the CPSIA. No such determination has been made by the Commission. Therefore, all children’s products sold, offered for sale, manufactured for sale, distributed in commerce, or imported for sale in the United States must meet the 100 ppm lead content limit beginning August 14, 2011 as statutorily mandated by the CPSIA unless otherwise excluded . . . .” Some people believe the legal definition of “practicable” in certain legal rulings (case law) takes into account economics  and is intended to be a more pragmatic standard allowing applicants to plead that the law will ruin their businesses.  This theory depends on a richer, more nuanced meaning of the term than provided in online legal dictionaries (” when something can be done or performed ” or ” anytime something can be done or performed “). A more detailed explanation, closer to the wishes of those pinning their hopes on this provision, comes from JustAnswer.com :  ” Normally one would say, in a legal arena, that if it does not cause an undue hardship to one party or the other, then it is ‘practicable’. An example would be if during a child support hearing, one party wants the other party to pay for a brand new corvette for their 16 years old child to drive, that would be considered impracticable whereas if they asked for the other parent to provide safe transportation and it is agreed to get a used Ford Escort, that would be practicable. If during a hearing on a property easement the land owner wants $200,000 for a 40 foot easement, the easement holder to pour a new driveway for them both to use, and he can only use it on Fridays, that would be impracticable. Does that make sense? It is basically saying that if there is a reasonable way to provide whatever is being asked, or rather ‘whenever practicable’, that should be done .” Anyone hoping to win an exception under this provision must be prepared to explain that there is no reasonable way to accomplish their goal, that it is in that sense not “practicable”.  This definition does not permit exceptions simply because in their absence costs might rise.  The cost must be “unreasonable” but can be much greater than zero.  What might be deemed an “unreasonable” cost by this CPSC Commission? Well, I think some factors are quite relevant in evaluating whether such exceptions will EVER be granted.  First, the three Dem Commission has taken the position publicly that there is no safe level of lead .  This is wrong, as we know, because since every human takes lead into his/her body every minute of the day and night through lead in air, water, food and dirt (at a minimum), we cannot conclude that life degrades in the presence of lead alone.  The source, concentration and exposure to lead determines the nature of the risk (as they say, the dose makes the poison).  Unfortunately, these Dem non-scientists are beyond convincing.  Try telling them that money is more important than their unthinking appraisal of the “risks” confronting children with lead.  I can’t see it. As if that weren’t enough, the CPSC Staff has publicly stated that everything can be made lead-free based on the bizarre definition of “technological feasibility” under the CPSIA. That term of art does not have the expected meaning of its English words since economics were written out of the definition.  This Commission knows that everything can be made without lead, and given their caveman fear of lead, any applicant will have to explain why other available options are no good.  The concept of technological feasibility and not practicable are not really as divorced as they seem. CPSC Staff shed some light on practicability in their 100 ppm report: a.  ” . . . low-lead materials that can be used in the production of children’s products generally appear to be commercially available in the market place” b.  “In general, for cost increases affecting a broad base of industries, there will be a mixture of effects: both increases in the retail prices of children’s products and reductions in overall production levels.” c.  “Alternatively, some manufacturers may need to redesign or re-engineer their products. Valve stems for bicycles, for example, may need to be fitted with more secure caps, which will effectively render them inaccessible and potentially more difficult to use. In addition, products may be simplified to reduce the number of components for testing.” Overall, the implication of the economic analysis is that the bulk of economic damage (rising costs) has already occurred.  In addition, the CPSC seems to think there is more than one way to skin a cat – and that would be quite relevant in any proceeding under the Functional Purpose Exception provision  Which items would likely be eligible for consideration for relief?  It would likely only be items that are being sold subject to a stay (ATVs and bicycles) because everything else that’s on the market is already compliant.  And how many items are being openly sold today are NOT in compliance with the current lead standards?  Damn near zero.  As Mike Larson notes in the Star-Tribune (March 27, 2011):  “Unfortunately, this hasn’t helped because the many manufacturers and dealers have chosen not to sell the smallest youth model ATVs because of the risks of selling under the stay, and there’s now a limited availability of these products for consumers.  In fact, half of the major ATV manufacturers are no longer selling youth model off-highway vehicles.” My conclusion:  No one can apply for this exception and if they do, they are highly likely to be turned down. Just like the last three years.  It’s a big win for Waxman – he appears to be “listening” but instead is perpetrating a fraud on all the dupes in the children’s product industry.  He cares not about your petty problems (that he created).  It’s truly heartwarming . . . . One last thought:  Who really gets the short end of the stick here?  It’s you as usual, the little guy.  The CPSC Staff acknowledges that the 100 ppm standard is anti-small business:  “Despite the existence of complying materials and components in the marketplace, some manufacturers, especially very small ones, may not be able to readily purchase these materials and components due to the lack of available distribution channels. For example, the Handmade Toy Alliance stated that its members would be unable to consistently obtain materials complying with such a low lead limit because its members do not purchase raw materials, but instead purchase component parts from retail stores.” But, heck, who will take the time to actually read their 59-page report?  Believe me, Waxman ain’t losing sleep over the possibility that you will read it, much less actual members of Congress. And then there’s the practicality of the exception process – it’s like major litigation against the government. Think of the cost – you would need to hire experts, lawyers, consultants and would have to prepare dossiers on each and every material, component and product you want exempted.  You will bear the burden of proof, you will be judged ONLY on the “proof” you submit, and best of all, you will be judged by a panel controlled by Tenenbaum, Adler and Moore.  Who on Earth will waste their money and their time on this?  Perhaps Mattel, WalMart and a few Asian manufacturers of bicycles (China makes 58% of world bicycle production).  It’s not for you – you can’t afford it.  This is a meager gimme for big business, like “firewalled test labs”, something to ease the troubles of the mega companies affected by the CPSIA. As for the rest of us, let’s not forget the wisdom of Senator Dick Durbin’s office : “I think you are right that the CPSIA imposes costs on businesses, and because of economies of scale it’s the smaller businesses that will feel these costs more acutely. This is part of a larger calculation that it’s worth the costs to shift from the old system of post-market correction (once a dangerous product is out in the market and leads to sick kids, recalls, lawsuits, etc.) to a new system of pre-market testing and certification (instead of just assuming products are safe and paying the price for false assumptions).” [Correspondence dated April 16, 2009] I think the real false assumption is that the Democrats care about anything other than getting reelected.

Follow this link:
CPSIA – Futile Provision or Gimme for Big Biz?

CPSIA – Oversight Hearing Set for July 6th

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding an oversight hearing on July 6th entitled ” The Views of the Independent Agencies on Regulatory Reform ” featuring CPSC Commissioners Bob Adler and Anne Northup.  Other agencies will also be questioned (FCC, FERC and FTC).  Break out the popcorn!

Read More:
CPSIA – Oversight Hearing Set for July 6th

CPSIA – ECADA Mark-up Delayed . . . What Did You Expect?

Continuing Congress’ recent tradition of partisan gridlock, the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday “postponed” the mark-up on the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA).  This is no doubt due to the politically-advantageous intransigence of the Dems on basically ANY amendment of the CPSIA.  Although they (through the mouthpiece of Henry Waxman) concede that the law must be changed, they really don’t mean it.  Your concerns . . . your complaints . . . your data-driven critiques of the awful CPSIA . . . your lost revenue . . . your lost business opportunities . . . your escalating costs . . . your job cuts . . . have ALL fallen on deaf Dem ears, all for the greater good of putting more Dems in a position to say THEY hold the high moral ground and love children more than evil Republicans.  Soon they will finish the job by preventing any fixes to the CPSIA. The next chance for a mark-up is the weeks of July 7 or 14.  And, if you aren’t aware somehow, on August 14, the lead standard drops to 100 ppm by legal action under the original CPSIA.  Among the many reasons why the Republicans have been working on this amendment since the FIRST DAY OF THE NEW CONGRESS (see my blogposts of January 7th  and thereafter) is to head off that terrible change in law.  Aside from the absurdity that Congress ENDORSED the sale of merchandise with 300 ppm lead for two years only to legislate a reverse course on August 14, 2011 when the merchandise magically becomes dangerous overnight, the provision has been interpreted to be RETROACTIVE in effect.  In other words, your inventory becomes unsaleable after August 13 even if in compliance with prior law if even a single component violates the trace 100 ppm lead-in-substrate standard.  For perspective, consider that the dirt in the White House vegetable garden has been tested out at 93 ppm lead. As previously discussed in this space, retroactive bans are extremely rare in American law and never before have they been so carelessly used or endorsed as in the awful CPSIA.  So there is a ticking time bomb in the CPSIA – and the Dems are perfectly content to let it explode in your warehouse or your store.  Expect many order cancellations soon. Thanks Dems.  Good job governing. 

Read this article:
CPSIA – ECADA Mark-up Delayed . . . What Did You Expect?

CPSIA – He Was Always a Weiner

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is the latest politician caught doing naughty things (” The Incredible Shrinking Weiner “, ” Weiner Admits He Sent Lewd Photos; Vows Not to Resign “, etc.).  It is no small irony that the zesty Mr. Weiner blew hot and cold on the CPSIA. It’s one of his issues – he is a long-time member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and one of the people we are ostensibly supposed to BEG for help on the CPSIA.  On two occasions, he sent letters asking questions about this noxious law (July 7, 2010 and January 7, 2009) but never actually voted to help us.  His letters are evidence that he knew that there were serious problems affecting, among others, his constituents. Thus, we cannot nominate the Weinerman for the Hall of Fame, notwithstanding his apparent interest in our problems.  It is regrettably true that Mr. Weiner never actually DID anything for us other than send the letters.  As per the usual for EVERY SINGLE DEM, Weinerboy fell into line with the Waxmanis and refused to break ranks to support efforts to amend a law he himself questioned.  Now that’s great government!  At least he was never so heavily committed to our cause that it took time away from his hobbies.  Work-life balance is so important! Dare we hope to someday miss Mr. Weiner???

Read More:
CPSIA – He Was Always a Weiner

CPSIA – Status of CPSIA Amendment (ECADA)

Having delayed the mark-up of the CPSIA Amendment bill (ECADA), the House is out of session for the next week.  The timing for resumption of the consideration of this bill has not been released.  I think it is incumbent on us to make a fuss over this delay and to press our Congressional representatives to act to pass this law.  Other industry groups are pushing for the meager and surgical relief offered by this law – but the Dems continue to resist.  The Dems moan and groan as though ECADA guts the CPSIA, perhaps banking on a docile media to not challenge their characterization of a very balanced and frankly, rather undramatic bill.  In fact, I was just interviewed by a reporter whose opening question was why the controversy over a bill that changes so little about the CPSIA.  Good question. I have an explanation to offer you  – it’s just politics, pure and simple, 100% politics.  As previously noted, the Republicans were sensitive to the excesses of the law before it was passed.  Given that the CPSIA was passed in August 2008, as America headed to the polls en masse to overwhelmingly elect Mr. Obama as our President, all members of Congress (other than Rand Paul and three others) saw the wisdom of supporting this bill.  The political cost of opposition to the CPSIA was unbearable – as my own representative told me face-to-face in July 2008, even though the CPSIA was over-the-top, he had to vote for it, otherwise he would face election commercials accusing him of defending corporations over children’s safety.  He would not sacrifice his job over this vote.  He assured me that Congress usually goes too far in its bills, but would go back in 12-to-18 months to fix it.  Not in this case, apparently. So the Republicans, like the Democrats, preferred the safe route politically in the summer of 2008, but by all appearances, wanted to go back and fix the bill as predicted by my district’s representative.  To their credit, the Republicans have used the majority  power in the House restored in the 2010 midterm elections to reach out to both sides on this issue, as well as to the Dems, to find appropriate middle ground on this contentious issue.  [I have discussed these efforts in this space over the course of 2011.]  The new General Counsel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Gib Mullan, is the ex-General Counsel and ex-Director of Compliance and Field Operations at the CPSC, so let’s posit that he understands the law pretty well from all angles. Even with this new horsepower (intellectual and political), the Dems haven’t responded to the Republicans’ entreaties and resolutely won’t yield on any points.  They continue to fight ECADA tooth and nail. Why? It’s politics, just politics.  Drop any notion that the Dems care about you . . . or your employees . . . or your suppliers . . . or your dealers . . . . or the consumers, teachers, families or schools that want, need and use your products every day.   Jobs, schmobs.  The well-documented and negative consequences of the CPSIA on our markets and economy (not to mention the paltry or nonexistent acheivements of the law) are just not on the Dems’ radar. They only care about getting reelected – their concern is simply themselves.  As in 2008, the ECADA issue is tailor-made for political gains.  As far as I can tell, that’s too tempting a morsel to pass up, damn the consequences on the “little people”.  The Dems argue to the populace that anything that makes the world better for your business necessarily makes life worse for kids.  Zero sum.  It’s a stupid, nonsensical argument, but if you give it no thought, it might SOUND good.  The Dems know their position makes them look good to a dozing electorate and a gullible media, and makes the Republicans push a lot of chips into the center of the table to do the right thing for our country. The Dems are also catering to their power base, the consumerists.  The consumer groups have their own axes to grind. For one thing, if they give an inch here, some people might accuse them of being hypocrites.  After all, they have repeated the Big Lie (“There is no safe level of lead”) for so long that it would come as a shock and disappointment to their true believers if they conceded the (intentional) error of their bumper sticker slogan.  In addition, their budgets are paid for by trial lawyers.  If they give in, there will less money available for tort lawyers to suck out of the system. That won’t work, will it? So the Dems are opposing restoring sanity to the safety laws for entirely self-interested political reasons.  Not ONE Democrat has EVER broken with the Waxman line. They have stuck together like glue.  Hats off to them for being well-organized.  But the Dems should be ashamed of themselves as public citizens – by putting their own PERSONAL interests ahead of the country and its economic engine, they are taking the low road.  Throwing our company, our jobs, our products, the families and schools that need our products, throwing everyone under the bus all to save their own jobs – that’s contemptible.  This is your government at work. Please reach out to your Congressmen to express your outrage.  Send emails and faxes, and ask your friends, relatives and associates to do it, too. Let’s clog the inboxes with complaints.  It’s time to stand up for what’s right!

Read More:
CPSIA – Status of CPSIA Amendment (ECADA)

CPSIA – Tell me What You Think

With the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) stalled for the moment, it’s a good time to reflect on where we are. I want to know what you think. As I see it, this is a case of the unstoppable force colliding with the immovable object. Guess where we are located? At the point of collision. On one side, you have the Republicans. They have always decently listened to our issues and tried to help. Only after the 2010 Midterm elections were they in a position to get things done. With the power of the House majority behind them today, they have taken the political risk and shown the political will to craft a reasonable, measured and, frankly, surgical amendment of the acknowledged defective CPSIA. Interesting sidelight : The legislative dynamic in Congress in 2008 seems long-forgotten. At that time, the Dems controlled both Houses and the dominant player was San Francisco’s own Nancy Pelosi. The CPSIA was negotiated during a time when she and her minions ran the show. True, there was a Republican President BUT owing to the media frenzy at the time, no one was willing to take the political risk of asking any questions. Congressional hearings were controlled by the Dems in both Houses and stage-managed them to achieve the right “tone”. Behind the scenes, the legislative negotiations between the parties at that time are best described as stiff-arms. The Republicans were jammed on many of the worst anti-business terms in the CPSIA and the sting never went away. This may be why they are so sympathetic to our cause today. Please keep this in mind when the consumer groups and the Dems cluck about the 2008 super-majority, bipartisan vote on the original bill. In fact, the Repbulicans would tell you that they had no choice. Sounds convenient, perhaps, but if you talk to them, you will quickly see that they really mean it. On the other side of this collision are the unscrupulous consumer groups and the Dems. This cabal works together for political advantage. The Dems, led by Henry Waxamn, see that they can use ECADA to score political points. They know that the Republicans don’t want consumer groups to send out letters to their constituents saying that the incumbent voted to endanger children with lead in toys. I know it’s sick, but that’s reality in Washington. This may give you some perspective on why people say Washington is “broken”. It is. The Dems want to score points against the Republicans, and the fact that we are being squished in the process is a cost they are willing to bear. Get it, your demise is a cost they are willing to bear, all for the “greater good” of politically endangering the Republicans. Remember, Members of the House are continually running for office. It takes true courage to do the right thing when you are exposed to Machievellian forces like Mr. Waxman and his merry band of manipulators. For this reason, I am fairly pessimistic about the prospects of this law. You get the same sinking feeling watching the talking heads on CNBC discuss the deficit and war over the national debt limit and hearing our national leaders talk blandly about the consequences of default on U.S. Treasuries. No big deal . . . . The politicians are playing with our lives, but act as though it is some of kabuki theater, Model UN gone mad. Do you think they are looking for a good grade, rather than doing the right thing for America? I rule out that the Dems are totally ignorant of science. I rule out that they don’t understand the data on injuries or what it means for their law. I think they simply don’t care about these things. Their profession is politics, and all that matters is the taste left the mouths of voters. A bill easing up on businesses over lead in children’s products has political weaknesses that the Dems prefer to exploit. The needs of our community are a secondary consideration. A distant second, too. So . . . what do you think? What do you recommend in this hot stove league? Can we do anything about this tragi-comedy, can we save products, companies, markets and jobs before the consequences of inaction suffocates them all out of existence? Let me know. Thanks.

View the original here:
CPSIA – Tell me What You Think

CPSIA – ECADA Mark-up DELAYED

The mark-up of the long-awaited CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) has been postponed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce until after Memorial Day. There was purported a time conflict issue with business pending before the committee. This gives time for the two sides to work to a resolution of their differences. It being Washington, however, don’t hold your breath. The Dems continue to be under Mr. Waxman’s thumb and there is no telling what will dislodge that pressure.

See more here:
CPSIA – ECADA Mark-up DELAYED

CPSIA – AAP’s Campaign of Lies on CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) Continues

Not quite out of town yet, Cindy Pelligrini and her AAP associate have promulgated another letter today with more lies and misstatements about lead and the CPSIA. It is worth observing that there is no doubt, and never has been any doubt, that lead is a neurotoxin and is capable to harming children.  I think that’s a given.  The AAP letter gives considerable air time to remaking this point over and over again.  Got it, thanks.  What the AAP cannot do, and never has done, is prove a LINK between the presence of lead-in-substrate in children’s products (shoes, educational products, books, ATVs, pens, bikes, t-shirts, shoes and so on) with actual injuries.  Nada, nothing.  Instead, they emphasize the “danger”, sometimes lapsing into fantastic arguments calculating “losses” based on assumed and undocumented injuries, but NEVER do they address the subject of causation or nexus. A good example of AAP tall tales is from their May 11 letter: “The potential impact of lead in children’s products is real.  For example, in 2007 and 2008, over 9.8 million pieces of children’s toy jewelry were recalled for excessive levels of lead.  If just one-half of one percent of these items caused lead exposure in a child, 49,000 children would have been affected.  If each of those children lost one IQ point – which can occur at levels of exposure below 100 parts per million – the economic burden of that lead exposure would be at least $409 million just in lost lifetime income. Health economists estimate that every time average blood lead level increases by a small amount across the children born in any given year, $7.5 billion is lost in potential earnings for those children.” But the AAP cannot deliver up even one such victim.  All such calculations are therefore pure fantasy.  Or should I say pure ignominy? Today’s letter is no better.  See below with my annotations in red .: May 24, 2011 The Honorable Fred Upton Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Mary Bono Mack Chairwoman Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Upton and Chairwoman Bono Mack: As experts in the field of pediatrics, environmental health, and toxics, we would like to express our deep concern over the consideration of legislation that would have the effect of permitting more lead in toys and children’s products. [ This is a LIE - ECADA does not permit "more lead in toys and children's products".] Lead is a potent toxicant that can have a range of adverse effects on children’s brains and bodies. Low lead levels cause a wide array of negative effects, including cognitive, motor, behavioral, and physical harm. Even at very low levels, lead has been demonstrated to cause the loss of IQ points in children. [ AAP citations call into question cause and effect, noting the many factors involved including self-selection.] Children with elevated blood lead levels are more likely to experience attention deficit and reading disabilities, and to fail to graduate from high school.  [They are also more likely to live in poverty, in older housing, in inner cities and eat paint chips.]  Researchers have identified associations between lead exposure and increased aggression, commission of crime and antisocial or delinquent behaviors.  [Ditto]  Other effects include abnormal balance, poor eye-hand coordination, longer reaction times, and sleep disturbances. At high levels, lead can be fatal. [Can the AAP show me an example of ONE CHILD who died or was injured from lead-in-substrate EVER?  Apparently not - four Congressman tried to get the same information during the April 7th House hearing without success.]  Lead accumulates in the human body and is stored in the bone, so multiple low-level doses can quickly result in harmful levels. For all of these reasons, our nation has for decades pursued a multi-faceted strategy of reducing children’s exposure to lead from all sources, including air, paint, soil, food, water, and the full range of consumer products. [The AAP cites a CDC publication  in their May 11 letter on lead in which the CDC points to lead in paint, interior dust, exterior dust and dirt and lead in tap water.]  To date, science has not been able to identify any safe level of lead exposure for children. In 2008, Congress passed legislation that recognized the devastating effects of lead on children’s health and strictly limited lead content in toys and other children’s products. The Consumer Product Safety improvement Act protected children up to the age of 12, thereby covering the full period in which the vast majority of children will experience both rapid brain growth and the behaviors that increase lead exposure. [Human factors experts at the CPSC have long acknowledged that mouthing behavior ends at about age three.  Mouthing behavior over age three is unusual and considered age-inappropriate, meaning that it is the responsibility of parents and caretakers to monitor and manage such behaviors to the extent they occur.]  The law also phased in limits on lead content, with the final stage of that limit scheduled to take effect this August. That restriction of no more than 100 parts per million of lead in children’s products is expected to all but eliminate the possibility that exposure to a single product could cause the loss of one IQ point. [The AAP's assertion that there is a "possibility" of a loss of an IQ point from an interaction with lead-in-substrate in a children's product is purely conjectural and without basis in fact.  Their persistence in advancing this argument without proof must be considered evidence of an intent to deceive.]   These provisions represent critically important protections for children’s health and are a vital component of a comprehensive strategy to reduce lead exposure from all sources. [Interestingly, neither the CDC nor the EPA take this position.  In fact, the EPA notes:  "First and foremost, the Agency faces the difficulty of determining the level at which to set the standards given the uncertainties in information on cause and effect --what environmental levels in which specific medium may actually cause particular blood lead levels that are associated with adverse health effects. The Agency has tools, which are only generally consistent, that show that certain increases in environmental lead levels are associated with certain increases in blood lead levels. Given the range of uncertainty shown in its analysis supporting the establishment of a hazard level under this rule, EPA has developed a technical analysis that considers hazard standards for dust and soil at the lowest levels at which the analysis shows that across-the-board abatement on a national level could be justified. EPA recognizes, however that for any levels of lead in dust or soil judgment must be exercised as to how to treat the medium, and interim controls as well as abatement could be effective . . . . Thus, if EPA were to choose standards that are too low, the public could be unable to distinguish between trivial risks at the low levels of lead from the more serious risks at higher levels. This could result in clean up for little to no health benefit, or conversely, it could result in almost no clean up because persons would question the credibility of the ‘hazard' determination."] Given the extreme difficulty or impossibility of eliminating children’s exposure to lead in our air, soil, water and food, it becomes even more imperative to limit lead from those exposures we can control, such as children’s products. [Having never provided any nexus between trace levels of bound-in, insoluble lead-in-substrate in children's products and any known health risk, this sentence is either a lie or intentionally misleading.  The AAP could resolve all such matters in its favor if it ever proved its case.  Over the past four years, it has failed to do so.]  We urge you to maintain strict limits on lead in all parts of toys and products meant for children up to the age of 12 years. Signed by 100 “experts”

Continue Reading:
CPSIA – AAP’s Campaign of Lies on CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) Continues

« Previous Page — Next Page »