David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, which is one of the special interest groups that probably wrote and certainly lobbied for the CPSIA, has written another misleading press release- he's posted it here and also at The Hill Blog, where I suggest those who disagree should reply. I think previous responses have done good, as he is no longer making the inflated claims about the numbers of injuries he formerly made, nor is he making the ludicrous 'testing only costs fifty dollars' claim any more (too bad he's not acknowledging his error as publicly as he made the error, however- oh, and here's something interesting- initially, the consumer groups claimed testing was only 25.00, then they seamlessly doubled the price, and now seem to be dropping that claim down the memory hole).
The quotes from the latest PC Press release are italicized and in red.
The confusion and misunderstanding circulating among small businesses regarding the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) recently culminated in an attempt by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint to undermine this critical product safety law with an amendment to the economic stimulus bill. Fortunately, his effort was unsuccessful. Further attempts to change the law - bills have been filed in both the House and Senate - should also be defeated.
In fact, the efforts to reform this badly written bill and prevent further harm to America's citizens should be supported and passed.
See, I can make blanket statements and decrees just as easily as he can.=)
But let's talk about all that bewilderment in the poor muddled brains of those who run their own businesses. At one point, Arkush claimed this confusion and misunderstanding was orchestrated by the nefarious boegeyman of Big Business (I'm quoting the first comment to that post) in some covert scheme:
There is a lot of misinformation on the CPSIA floating around. It looks to me like a deliberate campaign by some large manufacturers who know better, but are whipping up fear and hysteria among smaller manufacturers for political purposes — sounding alarms about high costs and bankruptcies as a way of using the current economic crisis to renew the fight they lost last summer against a good product safety law. Maybe I’m mistaken, but that’s what it looks like. In any event, if there are real mistakes in the law, then they can be fixed. But I haven’t heard a single legitimate concern yet. Just misunderstandings.
Apparently, that claim was the public relations equivalent of belching while giving the toast at your in-law's fiftieth wedding anniversary, so now small business owners aren't dupes, they are just stupid.
However, this 'confusion' is not limited to small businesses. The ALA's own legal team has been frustrated by the law and finally concluded they simply won't obey it unless ordered to by Congress. Goodwill is hardly a small business, and many Goodwills have closed out their childrens' sections. A Salvation Army source estimates the CPSIA blow could wipe out more than 16,000 places in drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs supported by the stores. (more here)
The American Association of Publishers is hardly a small business, either.
Selecta wasn't exactly a cottage industry, and they are so 'confused' and muddled about the bill, poor dears, that they have left the American market:
Selectra Toys has decided not to sell their toys in the American market:
When Congressional representatives express surprise that it included books when they wrote a law covering 'all childrens' products'; when multiple lawyers from multiple organizations cannot agree on what a law says, but a large number of them are advising their clients that the risks are not compatible with staying in business, common sense would tell us the problem is with the law itself.
German wooden toymaker Selecta Spielzeug has announced that due to the extensive new testing requirements that will be imposed on manufacturers next year under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, it will cease distributing its toys in the U.S. effective December 31, 2008.
Selecta manufactures toys that comply with strict EU regulations for phthalates and other potentially harmful chemicals, but cites the cost of new testing as the reason it can no longer supply the U.S. market. The company claims that prices would be forced upwards "by at least 50 percent, which would price these products out of the market.".
Weakening the law would mean putting children at risk from dangerous products. We should always be cautious about that type of proposal, but it’s a particularly bad idea here because it’s not even necessary to address the concerns that small businesses have raised. The Consumer Product Safety Commission can resolve those concerns with some simple, commonsense rules. It already has begun to do so. For example, the agency’s Web site includes guidelines on lead and phthalates, and information for secondhand and consignment stores.
Reforming a bad law is not weakening the law. Nor is there any evidence that Senator DeMint's commonsense proposals would endanger children. No, it would only endanger the ability of lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits over testing and paperwork rather than actual dangers and threats to children's safety. Nor can the CPSC possibly resolve the concerns of small businesses by more rulings. In fact, to see just how this 'regulation by multiple rulings' actually contributes to confusion rather than alleviating it, you can do no better than to read this excellent post by Rick Woldenberg. Please, please, read it.
And this is the sort of 'clarification' we're getting from the CPSC Commissioner whom Public Citizen and Democrat Congressional reps have NOT asked to resign:
in the comments section on our vintage-books post, Valorie Jacobsen points to a Moore letter of Feb. 3 (PDF) in which he proposes that some undetermined proportion of children’s books printed before 1985 “should be sequestered” until more is learned about their possible health effects. Wow.
I suggest reading all of that post from Walter Olson at Overlawyered, it's the sort of excellent, well-sourced information we've learned to expect from him, and he never disappoints. But seriously, is Public Citizen trying to convince the public that 'sequestering' books is a commonsense guideline (see the second paragraph of page 4)? And HE's the Commissioner you want to keep and get rid of Nord? Where's the common sense in that?
The claim that all the concerns small businesses have can be addressed at the Commisioner level rather than through legal reform is just out of touch with reality. As Rick Woldenberg noted here:
Commissioner Moore takes a different tack when discussing the NAM petition. After reciting various administrative activities of the Commission relating to lead over the years, he attacks the integrity of the business community: "It would have been hard for a manufacturer of children's products to miss the clear message that they needed to get the lead out of children's products well in advance of final congressional action." It’s always helpful to have a “bad guy” to bash. Other than the fact that lead poisoning is virtually unknown in children's products outside of lead-in-paint (illegal for decades) and that the CPSC has always administered safety matters by examining the actual quantifiable risks, Mr. Moore might be right. However, responsible businesspeople concentrate on real consumer risks, and have no reason to concern themselves with the ebb and flow of possible arbitrary movements in the nation's regulatory scheme. Until recently, safety administration in this country was rational – is it really “foreseeable” that the legal standard would detach itself from risk so profoundly? In truth, periodic CPSC administrative activity over many years in relation to very specific circumstances is hardly a damning fact pattern revealing a dim-witted, oblivious or pernicious business community.
One concern is that the age limits themselves are unreasonable. It is ridiculous and completely unreasonable to treat bikes ridden by 8-12 year olds as though they pose the same risks as teething rings owned by 1 year olds. The CPSC cannot change that, as it would require commonsense changes at the foundational level of the law.
As we see more and more products pushed out of the market by the CPSIA, products which have never caused lead poisoning, it becomes clear that the law itself, which requires that all components of all products intended for the use of children 12 and under have the same lead limits, is unreasonable. 10 year olds do not chew their bike tires, lick their brakes, or suck on their tire valves.
They don't suck their socks.
They do not eat their books, not even books published before 1989. No book has ever been associated with elevated lead levels in the blood, yet as this law is written, those who do not wish to see books banned must first prove a negative- something that can only be fixed by the law.
Banning zippers and snaps is unreasonable, there is no evidence a child has ever been harmed by sucking his zipper pulls and snaps (no evidence that this is even something tiny babies are interested in doing, either), yet, the zipper company must first prove a negative, and this can only be fixed within the law itself, not by the Commission.
The redundant testing is not something the CPSC can fix. There is nothing commonsense about requiring everybody in the country who makes and sells products using snaps from The Super Snappy Company to have those snaps tested separately (and expensively) instead of having the Super Snappy Company test their snaps and sell them as either lead-free, or not tested, and allowing consumers to choose which snaps they wish to buy.
Small businesses are concerned about the labeling requirements- these concerns are addressed here, but I haven't seen them addressed by the CPSC, nor can the Commission fix the problems.
Overwhelming bipartisan majorities passed the product safety bill in response to a flood of hazardous toys and other children’s products pouring onto our shelves. Rolling back these protections would mean disregarding the harms done to children who have been hurt, become sick or even died from unsafe products - and would mean placing more children at risk by allowing millions of dangerous products to be placed on the market.
It is true that in the Democrat led Congress, all but four of our representatives voted in favor of this bill, which was also sponsored by 101 Democrats and five Republicans. However, this was a feel-good bill passed apparently without reading it, based on the reactions of our reps when we contact them. Some of them have expressed surprise that it covers books, crafters, or cottage industries. Furthermore, the vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill.
No CPSIA reform bill presented 'rolls back protections,' they merely stop harm- such as requirements for redundant, unnecessary, and in some cases impossible to comply with, third party testing of some items. If you test a lead free yarn once, it does not become even safer by testing it thrice.
And this bit of emotional manipulation is dishonest- to come up with 'many children' who have been hurt, sickened, or fatally injured by unsafe products he had to leave the lead stats entirely behind and include injuries from ATMs, crib strangulations, drawstring injuries, and more. Public Citizen has been called on this massaging of the data before. And we've seen the numbers. They don't add up.
It is also a non sequiter- it makes as much sense as saying that objecting to a ban on pink lipstick is disregarding the plights of many children who have died or been injured in swimming pools.
To be sure, the implementation of the new law has been frustrating for consumer advocates and small businesses alike. The principal problem is the lack of leadership at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Its current chair, Nancy Nord, is a holdover from the past administration, which was often too eager to protect large manufacturers at the expense of public health and safety.
Nancy Nord must go. The country deserves a product safety leader who is committed to carrying out Congress’ mandate and protecting the public. Finding a proper leader for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, rather than modifying the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, is where public officials should focus their energy right now.
Ah, yes, Nancy Nord, the preferred redirection target of Public Citizen, NRDC, PIRG, Representatives Waxman, Rush, Pelosi, and their comrades in arms. She is to be the scapegoat, the whipping boy for all the sins of the law itself and those who passed it. PIRG has been calling for Nord's resignation since at least October of 2007, so I don't really believe this latest demand that she go is a response to the current situation- it's just an excuse pasted on to their ongoing frustration that Nord called it as it is.
Here is what she said on the Today Show in October or early November of ‘07:
“NORD: I want to be hiring more safety inspectors and scientists and compliance officers. I don’t want to be hiring lawyers. I want some feet on the ground. I want people at the ports. I want people inspecting products. I don’t want to send—use our resources to send lawyers into court litigating, and that’s my concern with the legislation.”
I think she called it correctly, and for that, CPSIA's supporters cannot forgive her. It is perhaps coincidental that so many of the Consumer Protection groups' associates are lawers, is it not? Pin It
