Many of those opposed to the bill have pointed out one of the most obvious shortcomings- it cannot possible keep children safe because adult products are not so regulated, and the youngest children, who are the most vulnerable, are far more likely to be sucking on their parent's buttons than their own, and they will be chewing on Mama's necklace, taking a bite out of Papa's shoe, and grabbing the dog's chew toys. It's only a matter of time before Public Citizen et all replies to these points by saying, "You are so right. Let's regulate those, too." And I say that not because I think it's only a matter of time before they think of it- I firmly believe they already have. It's only a matter of time because these groups know that if they started by regulating all products, it would garner more negative attention.
It's a sort of war of attrition- put people out of business, get them scrambling to merely survive, demoralize them, and get everybody else comfortable with the next level of regulation. Then pull the noose a little tighter and add another round of regulations that at one point people thought were far fetched and ridiculous.
I wrote this in May:
My guess is it is only a matter of time until garage sales are simply banned at the local level. That time may be a decade or two, because you'll need to be boiled slowly enough that you won't notice the temperature increasing and your liberties evaporating in the steam. So you'll be as complacent then as we have been in the past about lost freedoms.
As well as this:
I have said this before, only partially tongue in cheek, but I really believe that this sort of mindset is leading up to the day when you must have your breastmilk regulated and tested before you receive permission to breastfeed your own baby, and it's only a matter of time before they are inspecting home kitchens. This over-reliance on regulation and bureaucratic oversight must cease if liberty is to thrive.
Well, it hasn't taken long. Here comes Jeff Gearhart and an organization called Alternet and HealthyStuff.org warning us that the whole world is toxic, toxic, I tell you, and we need some more regulations:
Hazardous chemicals are still far too commonplace in everyday consumer products. One quarter of all pet products had detectable levels of lead, including seven percent with levels higher than 300 ppm - the current Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) standard for lead in children's products. Sixty-four percent (64%) of the plastic women's handbags contained lead over 300 ppm. No matter how selective consumers are, they are likely to be faced with these unnecessary hazards in their homes, offices and vehicles.
The well-publicized and oft-criticized CPSC reforms of 2008 were clumsily implemented, but did put in place critical protections against hazardous chemicals in children's products. But most products, including pet products and women's handbags are not regulated by the CPSC. What's more, the CPSC only regulates less than ten chemicals in children's products; there's no system in place to adequately deal with the thousands of other chemicals on the market or provide incentives for companies to develop safer chemicals.
It's called the 2009 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Supposedly it's a big improvement over the CPSIA, which makes me think that all the problems with the CPSIA were not, as I have long suspected, unintended consequences or 'bugs.' Those problems were features, and their goal was to make consumers and small businesses and crafters embrace the TSCA:
TSCA reform package also shifts the burden upstream to chemical manufacturers, not chemical users like product manufacturers and retailers, to develop hazard information of chemicals. Overall, this system of regulating at the chemical manufacturer level is significantly more efficient and cost-effective than an attempt to regulate hundreds of individual product or component manufacturers.
Ultimately, the TSCA reform package addresses the root problem in a common sense way by phasing out the chemicals we know are toxic, requiring chemical manufactures to provide chemical hazard information and promoting the use and development of safer chemical alternatives.
So why didn't we start with that one instead of the CPSIA? Because then CPSIA would have been a harder sell. Note that this isn't a replacement for the CPSIA, it's just more of the same.
Right now, we have a tremendous opportunity for positive change as Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Bobby Rush will soon be introducing new bills to reform the outdated, toothless TSCA of 1976, that we currently use to regulate chemicals.
Bobby Rush was a sponsor of the CPSIA, too. And one of the biggest problems with the CPSIA is that is entirely based on the 'precautionary principle,'
Consider the testimony from U.S. PIRG, Mr. Ed Mierzwinski.
In that testimony before Congress he talks about all the damage lead poisoning can cause to a child, but never gives any evidence that any rises blood lead levels have, in fact, occurred from, say lead in an overall buckle or a book, and then just leaps from 'lead poisoning makes kids real sick' (paraphrased) to the sweeping (and unsupported) claim that therefore, a
'better, precautionary approach is to simply ban lead in all toys and children's products...
Incidentally, at the time of his testimony the age limits for the bill were for children seven and under, but he demanded that the limits be raised to 12 and under, and that did happen- which is another cause of some of the most byzantine and harmful, as well as just plain stupid, aspects of the CPSIA.
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 such as PIRG, Public Citizen, and the folks behind HealthyStuff.org- 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.
Over at Shaw's Eco-logic, the author writes:
Interestingly, to change TSCA into a precautionary law would require overlooking the terrible example of the CPSIA, a blatantly precautionary law that avoids all concept of risk assessment.
As Gib Mullan, Director of the Office of Compliance and Field Operations of the CPSC stated on February 26 at the ICPHSO (International Consumer Product Health & Safety Organization) Conference in Orlando, Florida (www.icphso.org), "Congress made it clear that [the CPSC is] to get away from 'that kind of analysis'". Thus, the CPSC is a precautionary law in which the regulatory agency is prohibited from considering if there is ANY risk associated with banned or restricted products.
More on the Precautionary Principle here and here. Pin It
