The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act Is A Ass

Culture, Irksome, Law, Politics & Current Events

On February 10, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 goes into effect.   Written in reaction to a 2007 scare about lead paint in Chinese manufactured toys, such as Thomas the Tank Engine, the law is designed to protect American children from further scares involving lead paint and dangerous chemicals.  Unfortunately, like the toy that inspired it, the law is a trainwreck, a case study in good intentions doing harm through short-sighted legislation.

If this law is not amended, or better still repealed, you won’t be able to buy handmade toys for children, backpacks, books aimed at the kid’s market, or cotton diapers.  The people who make wooden tops, print books like “The Great Brain” or “A Wrinkle In Time” or make cotton diapers, you see, simply cannot afford third party lab testing (estimated at $4000 a lot, often higher) to prove  that their products do not contain lead.  So they’ll go out of business.

To abuse another metaphor, the CPSIA is a shotgun fired at a wasp:

After the recall of millions of toys manufactured in China in 2007, Congress passed the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) last year to protect children from lead and phthalates. Under the new guidelines, which are set to take effect Feb. 10, any product manufactured for children under 12 must undergo third-party testing for certification.

The law isn’t just for toys, stress critics, who say it is too sweeping and will unfairly impact small businesses. Clothing, backpacks, bicycles, books, science equipment – anything intended for a child under 12 is affected. They argue that the law, however well-intentioned, has the potential to cause thousands of small US businesses to close at a time when unemployment is surging and the country is entering its second year of recession.

“Once again, here’s a situation where it’s the small business that suffers the most,” says Kathryn Howard, an environmental and consumer expert with the New York State Pollution Prevention Institute at Rochester Institute of Technology. “Mattel can easily afford to test every one of their Barbie dolls. The smaller guys are the ones that manufacture in the US – as opposed to China and other parts of the world.

Consider Amy Turn Sharp, mentioned in the linked story.  Ms. Sharp started her business in response to the lead paint scare.  She and her husband hand-turn maple toy trains.  A business operating on that scale simply cannot afford to pay labs in distant locations to certify the obvious: that maple does not contain lead.  Yet this law, which has no exemptions and is aimed at any consumer product targeted at children under 12, will require her to do just that.  So she’s out of business.

No child died as a result of the Chinese lead paint scare.  A number of children, whose families run small businesses, are certainly going to be a lot poorer in coming weeks unless this law is repealed or amended.  Yet the media, with only a few exceptions like the story above, isn’t covering this law, which threatens to bankrupt domestic industries when we’re already in a recession.  The big media, unfortunately, don’t like stories about the ill effects of laws that are passed in response to panics which the big media themselves create.  And make no mistake: the Chinese lead paint scare of 2007 was largely a media creation.

Instead it’s bloggers, left, right, and center, and the small businesses affected who are getting the word out.  There has been fine coverage of this problem from Overlawyered, Culture11, My Charmed Life, Publius Endures, Upturned Earth, Fashion Incubator, and many more.  The New York Times, CNN, and Fox, on the other hand, maintain a studious silence.

The issue is beginning to catch on, and the media are beginning to take notice, as have a few members of congress.  Perhaps it would be worth your time, or your kids’ time, to push a little harder.  Yes, as silly as it sounds, I’m urging you to write your congressman, to ask for a repeal of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

Do it for the children.

Last 5 posts by Patrick

5 Comments

  1. Ken  •  Jan 14, 2009 @4:37 pm

    I think Congress’ role in this is one of its accustomed willful ignorance. It’s the same approach that allowed them to sign the gigantic and complicated PATRIOT Act without having read it or understood its provisions.

    Other forces are more malevolent. At Overlawyered, Walter Olson discussed the glee of the people who make money over this sort of thing — testers and remediators. Walter linked Law and More, which quoted Sue Gunderson of a company called ClearCorps, which makes money off of public panic over lead: “Mmmmmm, do we want cheap, second-hand toys that could damage children?”

    Gunderson’s financially and ideologically motivated contempt for Americans who handmake toys, clothes, and other kids’ items, as well as consignment shops, secondhand stores, and a huge swath of the rest of the American economy, is contemptible. But her self-interest and self-importance of her ilk, along with Congressional ignorance and bureaucratic power-lust at the CPSIA, are what we face here.

    (Report comment)

  2. Dave  •  Jan 14, 2009 @4:42 pm

    There’s an obvious out; Section 101(b)(1) gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission the ability to exclude a specific product or material after notice & comment. And the Commission has already proposed (tentatively) exempting the following: Items with lead parts that a child cannot access; Clothing, toys and other goods made of natural materials such as cotton and wood; and Electronics that are impossible to make without lead.

    (See proposed exemptions & article at http://consumerist.com/5126354/hooray-cpsc-agrees-to-exempt-some-natural-items-from-product-safety-act).

    Your point remains valid, however, that it is ridiculous these exemptions were not originally written into the bill.

    (Report comment)

  3. Ken  •  Jan 15, 2009 @12:50 pm

    Bob — I think it was Bob — I think I just accidentally deleted your post whilst trying to make a voice-recognition program work. My apologies! I’m seeing if I can retrieve it.

    (Report comment)

  4. Patrick  •  Jan 15, 2009 @12:57 pm

    “Computer! Bring back Bob’s deleted comment!”

    “Computer?”

    (Report comment)

  5. Bob Also  •  Jan 15, 2009 @10:16 pm

    Say goodbye to the entire Childrens section in my bookstore. 25% of my sales comes from there. Say goodbye to a large number of publishers who will have to accept billions in returned merchandise which cannot be sold for any amount of money. Which instead will require expensive removal as “potentially hazardous waste”.

    (Report comment)

2 Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>