Natural Resources Defense Council: Do As We Say, Not As We Sue

Feb 6, 2009

By Patrick.

Hypocrisy watch: The Natural Resources Defense Council is one of the groups most actively promoting the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act, the law that mandates expensive, in fact ruinous, testing of any consumer product intended primarily for children under 12. Just yesterday, the Council, working with Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen, obtained a ruling from a court in New York that makes the law’s effects retroactive. While, technically, the ruling only effects non-compliant products (those containing lead or phthalates), in practice, this means that stores must throw out any untested merchandise already in their inventory, if they wish to avoid tort liability.

Here’s the hypocrisy. The NRDC (what do diapers, toys, and lunchboxes have to do with natural resources, anyway?) is one of the worst offenders. You can, as of this writing, buy non-compliant onesies from the NRDC. Onesies that may contain deadly lead and phthalates. Deadly to children!!! We can’t know, because the onesies haven’t been tested.

Even better: The NRDC, on Twitter, stated that the onesies are in compliance, because:

The NRDC attorney who worjed[sic] on our suit about #CPSIA tells me the testing requirements only apply to manufacturers.

But there’s still more, as the commercials say. According to the NRDC’s own press release, on yesterday’s victory:

NRDC and Public Citizen filed the lawsuit in December, following a CPSC attempt to create a loophole in the congressionally mandated ban, which goes into effect February 10, 2009. The loophole would have allowed retailers to stockpile and continue selling dangerous products as long as they were manufactured before the ban date.

So which is it? Retailers, or manufacturers? Who’s actually in touch with the NRDC’s lawyers? Their press release department, or their twitter feed? Or is this just yet another example showing this law to be so confusing that even the groups who want to sue under it don’t have a clue what it means?

Update: I see that the NRDC has changed its tune. They’re now giving away these potentially deadly, untested onesies, as a free gift (in return for a minimum $25 donation). Sorry NRDC, that sham won’t help in court, any more than it helps a ticket scalper who throws in a free pair of tickets, for customers who buy a ballpoint pen for $500.

The toxic onesies must go!

Hat tip: Walter Olson

Last 5 posts by Patrick

Don't Lose That Famous Temper, Bob. - September 2nd, 2010
How To Raise A Great Sailor - August 30th, 2010
Habeas Corpus Shouldn't Mean "Tag! You're It!" - August 26th, 2010
Activist Judges Seek To KILL US ALL! But That's Just The Start. - August 23rd, 2010
FIFTY THOUSAND CRONKITES?!? - August 21st, 2010

10 Comments

CPSIA, kids

7 Comments

Mark • Feb 6, 2009 @1:32 pm

HAH! For the first group to get sued under the new law, I nominate NRDC. I can see it now: the first ever lawsuit where an interest group sues itself. Can you imagine the landmark status that NRDC v. NRDC would assume? It would fit right alongside Kramer v. Kramer and Mothra v. Godzilla, not to mention Joe v. the Volcano.

In other news, you should really check out the NRDC’s celebration of yesterday’s decision overturning the CPSC opinion that exempted phthalates from inventory retroactivity. One of the best things about it is that it includes this magnificent line: “Today in America our top retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys R Us are taking stronger measures to protect our children than the government agency charged with doing so.” So, yeah, clearly if the biggest retailers are taking strong measures, there can be no debate that government’s measures are insufficiently strong. Either that or markets work pretty well. I’m not sure which.

It’s available here: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sjanssen/court_agrees_phthalates_are_ba.html
DeputyHeadmistress • Feb 6, 2009 @1:34 pm

Wow. Well spotted. I linked.=)
HonoluluHoneyBaby • Feb 6, 2009 @1:52 pm

Yep, Section 108 of CPSIA says:
“…it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute in commerce, or import into the United States any children’s toy
or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate(DBP), or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP).”
NRDC is now attempting to use a “legal loophole” to distribute their questionable goods by giving them away for donations. Closing legal loopholes was actually mentioned in NRDC’s successful NY lawsuit to prove original intent of CPSIA.
Patrick • Feb 6, 2009 @1:58 pm

The loophole would be absolutely ineffective. The onesie was available for sale earlier this afternoon, and it’s only available now in return for a donation that far exceeds its worth. Any competent attorney general would see that this is a sham, and that CPSIA is in fact selling the onesie.

I fully expect this product to be off the NRDC’s site next week. It is a potentially toxic product, sold for children, and it violates our law.
Connie Ballas • Feb 7, 2009 @6:08 am

From NRDC press release “Numerous animal studies have linked prenatal exposure to certain phthalates with decreases in testosterone, malformations of the genitalia, and reduced sperm production.”

So why is the ban on children’s toys and childcare products? Shouldn’t it be on items that pregnant women chew on???
Bob • Feb 8, 2009 @4:10 pm

Great! Now instead of saying she has a headache, my wife will say I need to be tested for lead and phthalates by a third party testing firm.
Leslee • Feb 16, 2009 @1:13 pm

Ditto Connie’s comment! The wikipedia page on phthalates says “A study published in 2005 reported that human phthalate exposure during pregnancy resulted in decreased anogenital distance among baby boys.” That’s about the extent of “harm” phthlates can do to a human. But how does that relate to children’s products?