It should be noted that private activist and lawyer groups often shop potential cases to state AGs’ offices, and in turn are made monetary beneficiaries of resulting fines and settlementsPoptort is a blog run by just such groups, so naturally, they are in favor of the CPSIA as it has the potential to benefit them greatly. A blogger there who goes by the laughably inapt name of 'Joe Consumer' has posted a few posts in support of the CPSIA. Oddly enough, he seldom permits any dissenting comments to go through on his blog, although he does go around to other anti-CPSIA blogs and attempt to leave his own comments there- more of the double standard we have seen. Below is my hasty rebuttal of some of his false statements, tomorrow I'll have more.
1) Congress passed the CPSIA overwhelmingly in the wake of unprecedented toy recalls, many of which included lead, after almost a year of careful deliberation.
FACTS: a. The recalls indicate the law as it stood was working- the CPSC worked with businesses to find and recall products, businesses participated willingly in voluntary recalls of their products. businesses also implemented stricter inspection guidelines on their own. The CPSC would have benefitted from better funding, which Congress saw fit to withhold. But in response to those increased safety measures, in 2008, before the CPSIA was implemented, there were 63 recalls that might have been prevented by the CPSIA, and only one of those caused any injury (one child, ONE, had elevated blood lead levels).
Furthermore, here's an example of one of those horribly shocking and unprecedented recalls:
one much-publicized recall of 436,000 toys by Mattel, the trigger for the recall was that “TWO CANS OF PAINT slipped through its safety systems, and were spread ratably over 436,000 units. Hmmm - how dangerous do you think one Sarge car would be with 1/218,000th of a can of paint on it? This event was one of the sparks that triggered the mania leading to the CPSIA - the same mania that now sweeps up libraries.”
b. A gap of a year between introduction of a bill (under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, as stated in the second link above) and final passage is not, of course, proof that any deliberation occurred at all, let alone 'careful' deliberation.
Since we know that Congress did not hear testimony from many of the stake-holders (those affected by the law, people who sell used products, crafters, micro-businesses, used bookstores, the motor bike industry, garment makers, etc), we know there was no deliberation that could be termed 'careful.' And since Congressmembers themselves have expressed shock that the law they passed convers books as well, we know there was no care taken in creating and passing the bill.
2) It is well known that lead exposure in children can result in seizures, comas, brain damage, and ultimately death—and as two recent studies published by the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine indicate (see here and here), even the tiniest amount of lead can hurt children's developing brains.
FACTS:
This sounds scary, which is why the argument is used, of course, but this wild-eyed emotional fear mongering has nothing to do with the fact that no evidence has ever been shown to indicate that there is any transference of lead from a book to a child's blood. Lead is not magic. It doesn't just fly through the air from the printed page to a child's blood stream. There are:
No known cases EVER of lead poisoning from books (of 44 rare sources of lead poisoning in children cataloged by CDC, none is from a book – only print-related case was an infant who had elevated levels after parents burned logs made from old newspapers – people don’t burn children’s book logs.) No mention ever, anywhere of lead in books even contributing to elevated lead levels.Saying that lead is bad is not good evidence that this law is a good law, because toys, books, and clothing are not the primary source of elevated blood lead levels in children, nor is this argument honest, as we know that children under 3 absorb lead much more readily than older children. There is no reason to believe that lead in a tire valve stem in a mini bike poses any threat to a ten year old.
And of course, the New England Journal of Medicine articles, notwithstanding, the verdict on lead levels is not nearly so conclusive as the above emotional laden argument makes it seem:
Based on his review of the body of literature and his own research, Bellinger hypothesizes that an enriched environment can prevent or ameliorate the effects of lead exposure, which is especially significant in light of the absence of an effective medical treatment. In the journal Pediatrics, Bellinger noted (emphasis added is mine):Finally, characteristics of a child’s rearing environment might influence the
toxicity of a given lead dose.47 Lead seems to be similar to other biological risks, such as low birth weight, in that children from environments that offer fewer developmental resources and supports express deficits at a lower blood lead level than do children from more optimal environments45,48
and show less recovery after exposure.43
I'll have more on this tomorrow, I have to dash.
For further corrective information, see here. Pin It
