I mentioned this table Friday showing the billions in dollars in losses due to the CPSIA, but there are more additions today, it's a great tool, awesome research, and the word should be spread. Also, she is looking for input from smaller businesses- if you sold ANYTHING last year that you can't this year, figure out your losses and let her know.
Dr. Robert Needlman tries to find out if there is lead in books- and reading the comments it's clear that another way this misshapen bill called the CPSIA has caused incalculable harm is to instill fear and mistrust in the general public where none need exist.
In comments to this post on books, LS says:
"...one of my "representatives", Senator Tom Harkin (D,Ia) was one of the sponsors of this disaster.
I wrote to him, and received back an extremely condescending letter telling me that this was "for the children". Not only that, he believes that the majority of the lead recall problems come from 'small manufacturers', not large-scale importers, like Wal-mart, Kmart, and the like, who import massive amounts of Made-in-China crap. When I confronted him with the facts (supported by researched and cited information) that over 90% of the recalled items originated in China, he sent me a form letter saying something like, "thanks for your support. Next!""
I wonder who on earth told him that the majority of recalls came from small manufacturers and not imports? Action you can take: Call or email your representatives, Harkin, and/or the members of the committee and refer them to this post or this data.
In Rep. Dingle's letter he asks ten questions. Rick Woldenberg (love that guy) suggests this is a good time to contact him and answer those questions from our perspective, whether we be sellers, buyers, makers, or users of affected products.
In order to avoid overwhelming the office, he has established a contact address, and he would like to compile all the responses and deliver them to Dingell's office. This is a great opportunity to be productive and proactive and get our voices heard. Send your comments for Dingell here:
commentsfordingell@cox.net
More here.
For an example of an absolutely outstanding responses see the Organic Baby Farm. Seriously, this letter is a MUST read.
In a page absolutely filled with scrumdillylicious illustrations (Walter Brooks is a favorite of mine, too), Carol Baicker-McKee tries to track down information on lead in books. She finds:
As this research study indicates, children's "mouthing behavior" peaks between 6 and 15 months and by age 3 years, the licking and chewing of inappropriate objects has dropped to quite low levels . This is why both the U.S. and the EU have special "small parts" rules for toys intended for children below the ages of 36 months; after that, it's reasonable to expect that most typically developing children will have learned not to put unacceptable items in their mouths.
PIRG and Public Citizen lobbied expressly to raise the limits from 7 to 12 (and seven was silly enough), and I am not aware that they gave any sound reason for this. Congress appears to have simply acquiesced. In my research I am finding that in regard to phthalates bans, at least, those European countries that PIRG and Public Citizen like to cite so fondly ('they're already banned in Europe and have been for YEARS') actually phased in the bans over a much longer period of time than we took, AND they applied the bans to products intended for children three and under, or five in one case.
Carol continues:
The question remaining that I haven't answered of course is whether it matters that a baby sucks on a book with lead in the printing inks. I've been combing the internet, trying to track down research about the absorption of lead from ink, and I think it's intriguing that there are no reported cases ever (that I've been able to find) of anyone being harmed by the lead in ink. You'd think the occasional bookworm, printer, or literary-minded toddler would show up with a case of lead poisoning traced back to the printed word (or picture). I did, however, find this old NIH study that examined the pH conditions that caused lead to leach from printed paper; stomach acid pH did cause some leaching, but saliva level pH did not. This finding suggests that babies are likely only at risk if they're consuming the pages (as I did) -- but that ordinary gumming, sucking, and licking is not a problem. Maybe a little parent education to discourage them from letting babies eat paper would be good -- look at the success of educational programs like "Back to Sleep." Not every problem needs a heavy handed law to solve it.
PIRG, Public Citizen, et al do, in fact, prefer the heavy hand of law to solve most problems. They consider voluntary compliance only a means to an end, and that end is a full regulatory jacket restricting every human interaction where money is exchanged or can be made through a lawsuit. I personally believe, based on my reading, that the CPSIA is only one more incremental step on their way to an adult version of the CPSIA.
You see, the voluntary approach has already been tried, and it was working.
PIRG in 2002 presented a petition to ban phthalates, and they write:
The CPSC's second response to the petition filed by PIRG and other groups was to request that the toy industry voluntarily remove phthalates from rattles and teethers, even though the petition filed by PIRG and other groups requested that the CPSC ban the use of phthalates in all toys for children five years old and under. Most toy companies have complied with the CPSC request; many toy companies are planning to or already have eliminated phthalates from production,
surpassing the CPSC's voluntary ban. Some companies are using substitutes like ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) instead of soft PVC. EVA does not have the safety concerns associated with PVC; it can be used without a plastic softener, thus eliminating the need phthalates entirely. Still other toy companies have stopped manufacturing teethers and rattles
WHAT? If 'most' toy companies had already complied with the ban in 2002 or had surpassed the voluntary ban, and those that couldn't simply eliminated the items from their production* why the urgency in getting the 2008 ban pushed through so quickly with little discussion?
No toy company, however, has recalled mouthing toys containing phthalates. These toys are still on the shelves and available to consumers. Despite the substantial body of evidence suggesting that phthalates may endanger children's health, toy companies continue to assert that they have eliminated phthalates from production because of "consumer concern," not any danger from phthalates themselves. Toy companies and the CPSC have also used only a narrow definition of
"mouthing toys," defining them only as teethers and rattles. Other toys that children chew on - such as bath books or soft vinyl blocks - are still on the market and available to consumers.
I am disturbed that the strongest verb they could use in justifying this draconian law was the word 'may.' Businesses are to be destroyed, product lines eliminated, and companies punished because research suggests something may be dangerous. More chillingly, PIRG seeks to control not only what the companies do, but their speech as well, and they need to be punished for not joining in the groupthink and groupspeak that PIRG has decided is appropriate.
This is because the Naderite groups subscribe to the Precautionary Principle as the proper basis for the government to restrict freedoms, and they think you should, too.
Greenpeace, Health Care Without Harm, and similar advocacy organizations invoke a regulatory approach often called the precautionary principle, which presumes that chemicals are likely to cause harm and must be proven innocent. Information suggesting a risk is considered meaningful, but exculpatory data is rarely given equal weight. One potential risk of this approach is the potential for regulatory overload, where all chemicals are to be regulated by default, and only permitted for specific uses after demonstrations of harmlessness.I would like to know how we simply crossed over from risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis into the precautionary principle as seen by lobbyists who were not elected to their position and did not consult me, and do not live in a world where they have any understanding that there is any value to pre-1985 books.
Greenpeace, Health Care Without Harm, and similar advocacy organizations invoke a regulatory approach often called the precautionary principle, which presumes that chemicals are likely to cause harm and must be proven innocent.
Most U.S. regulatory agencies eschew this approach, and use an approach similar to the authors of the CPSC study, employing a standard scientific risk-assessment approach (though still one focused only on risk and not on benefit). In such a framework, a chemical might warrant regulatory control if evidence supports the contention that the chemical is capable of causing harm to human beings at a relevant level of exposure.
Speaking of books...
Carol has two other lovely vintage book posts here and also here) Let me remind you that you can share yours, or somebody else's beautiful book post on the CPSIA over at Let a Woman Learn in her very easy to use link widget. And there is a flickr group of endangered books here- you can add to it as well.
I hadn't realized it, but even Mothering Magazine, hardly a 'front' for any evil corporation, nor a bastion of conservative politics, objects to many portions of the CPSIA and said so back in January:
Imagine Christmas morning without Selecta, Haba, Sarah's Silks, Etsy toys, or American toys from small, creative mom-and-pop natural toy companies. It reminds one of the Grinch who stole Christmas—and unfortunately, it is days away from coming to pass. That's why we desperately need your help to contact your representatives in Congress and share your concerns.
They did express regret that the ban wasn't retroactive, and, of course, we know they got their wish when the court played fairy godmother to NRDC and Public Citizen.
'
I close this post with another link to Rick Woldenberg:
Let's stop and think for a moment (this is what distinguishes us from Congress). Consumer products intended children under 12 years old - that includes books, right? Lending and selling are the same thing under the law, for good reason. Ergo, libraries are in. Hence, libraries have the same problems under the CPSIA as ATV dealers, thrift stores, toy companies, clothing manufacturers, and so on. My question is - why should the law apply to libraries at all? Is it sensible for our country to pass a law, chock-a-block with criminal penalties, state enforcement, whistleblowers, even asset forfeiture (you know, like you are a drug dealer, yes that makes a lot of sense), that even for one short second gives any credibility to the notion that books are or even might be poisonous?
He explains that one of the 'offending' items recalled because of lead paint was a toy car. There were over 400,000 units recalled- because two cans of pain slipped through the screening process. Those two cans of pain were used to paint highlights on the wheels. Two cans of pain spread over 400,000 items really couldn't have been the 'lead laced toxic toys' PIRG and Public Citizen keep talking about, at least not in a sane world. But we don't live in a sane world.
This is something more than just transformation of our society into a bubblewrap culture. It is the overlawyering of all that we do (a tip of the hat to Walter Olson), with new liability popping up everywhere. Look at the media coverage of this issue - you see again and again merchants stating that the prospect of liability is driving them out of the market or away from the children's market. Is this a good trade-off for our society? No, of course not. It might be GREAT for the trial bar, insurance companies, testing and equipment companies and other organizations primed to bottom feed on the paranoia and liabilities of this law, but for the rest of us, it's death. No one can deal with the new risks and inflexibility of the law. I also happen to think that a Mother-May-I form of law will never work, can never work. It is inconsistent with commerce in low-priced products like most children's products. If we want that for our society, kiss specialty markets like education goodbye.
Specialty markets for the disabled, native culture, counter cultural groups, and more- forced into extinction. Pin It
