Consumer Assembly 2009: CFA's Weintraub talks CPSC, CPSIA

At the Consumer Federation of America's Consumer Assembly 2009, CFA Director of Product Safety Rachel Weintraub urged the Obama administration to appoint new leadership to the Consumer Product Safety Commission and effectively enforce the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.

"The most important issue right now is to ensure that there is strong, effective leadership at the helm of the Consumer Product Safety Commission," Weintraub said.

She emphasized that new leadership is vital in order to begin implementation and enforcement of the CPSIA -- which, among other things, mandates lead-testing for certain products intended for children--with "a common sense approach consistent with the law."

Weintraub acknowledged industry concerns about the law, particularly those having to do with the costs of testing products for compliance. However, she decried efforts to have the law revised as attempts to have it "opened, gutted and weakened."

The law as written, according to Weintraub, already addresses "almost every common sense concern," including those related to children's clothing and books. "Textiles that are 100% fabric ... and books printed after 1985 do not contain lead," and do not need to be tested.

Weintraub's comments were echoed by other speakers at the CFA event, including Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who said, "we don't want children poisoned by lead." David Strickland, Democratic senior counsel for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, said the law was essential to establish "the safety net that every American assumed was already in place," and also urged the administration to appoint new leadership to the CPSC to "make sure the new law is implemented properly."

Consumers Union has been an active supporter of the CPSIA, which was passed last year with broad bipartisan support. CU joined the CFA and other consumer advocacy groups in addressing a letter to the Obama administration earlier this year expressing the need for effective leadership at the CPSC, along with strong, sensible enforcement of the CPSIA.

"This law is a strong, effective and much-needed solution to the persistent problems plaguing our product safety system," the letter stated, adding that the groups "urge you to move expeditiously to nominate a strong chairperson to the CPSC with product safety expertise who can implement the critical new product safety law and begin to tackle the myriad of issues facing this agency."

Comments

[Eric H]

I wonder if Rachel could give us the reference to the part of the law where those exemptions are listed? I have read it over and over, but cannot find it. Also, I wonder if she could list all of the products which are 100% fabric? Diapers, hospital sheets, and plain white underwear are about all that come to mind. Everything else seems to have non-fabric components like dye and fasteners. Also, I wonder if she has ever visited a library and contemplated how many books in it were published prior to 1985?

This sudden interest in the leadership is a canard. Which of the CPSIA requirements has Nord failed to meet? How would "more effective leadership" have done better? The problem is the law, not the bureaucrats whose hands are tied by its very specific and strict requirements.

[Challenge & Fun, Inc.]

I am very disappointed with Consumers Union and the thought that this law makes children's products safer. I wish it did. If it did, I could at least feel better about the fact that children's products are no longer available in thrift stores. But it doesn't.

Lead has been banned from paint for over 30 years. Where companies have failed to meet this law, they have been held responsible. To force all companies to undergo additional testing beyond their existing quality control measures, will put small businesses out of businesses, and ensure that any remaining US manufacturers move to China. If that makes YOU feel safer, and proud to be an American, so be it.

By creating a law that puts the risk level of a painted rattle for an infant alongside the risk of the thread in the shoes of a 12 year old, the real risks get lost in a mountain of imagined risks. I'm sorry, but I do not see the common sense there.

The fact that our government has ignored pleas for truly "common sense" reforms and all we have received back is blame placed upon the leadership of the CPSC for being unable to make sense of a twisted, overly complex, vindictive, law that is has already begun wreaking havoc on an industry that so many children rely upon, is unconscionable.

If Consumer's Union was being true to science and reality it would report that the true risk of lead poisoning is in paint in old homes and water pipes. It would also acknowledge that through efforts of the CDC lead poisoning in children has dropped significantly over the years.

You can spin this anyway you want, but empty thrift stores, confused librarians, closed small businesses (especially crafters, natural, niche and organic products) do not lie.

[Anne]

I find it very sad that the Consumers Union believes all children's books printed before 1985 (many of which are out of print, as well as newer copies which only have a © date, not a printed date) are worthless.

[jennifer]

according to Weintraub, already addresses "almost every common sense concern," including those related to children's clothing and books. "Textiles that are 100% fabric..." and do not need to be tested.

Please someone share with me where I can find this quote in the law so I can share it with my collegues who have just spent thousands of dollars testing their clothing lines, many of them organic.

This law is detrimental to our health and our future. No one understands it and it becoming more complicated then the tax code.

Put your politics aside, FIX the law and stop the blame. Businesses are closing and it isn't because they make unsafe products. Organizations like this act like we are making this up. If only I could get back the past 4 months of time I have spent on this...seriously how can you people sleep at night.

[Esther]

Ya know, this kind of argument against Nancy Nord because she is a Bush appointee is getting really old. Political persuasion does not immediately imply incompetence Ms. Weintraub. It is so nice that you can interpret law as you see fit. Fact of the matter is that the commission and Ms. Nord are bound to follow the law you wrote.

Also, it's rather ironic that many children's books (I venture 95%) printed post 1985 are printed in China. Further, books with staples are not exempt and the only way to know is to tear into the book. Maybe you should visit a library and see for yourself. It appears you haven't been inside one in a long time.

[Kevin]

Eric & Jennifer:
In reviewing previous letters from CU, I have to guess that the exemptions Ms Weintraub is referring to are in Section 101b of the CPSIA:

(b) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MATERIALS OR PRODUCTS AND
INACCESSIBLE COMPONENT PARTS.—
(1) CERTAIN PRODUCTS OR MATERIALS.—The Commission
may, by regulation, exclude a specific product or material from
the prohibition in subsection (a) if the Commission, after notice
and a hearing, determines on the basis of the best-available,
objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that lead in such
product or material will neither—
(A) result in the absorption of any lead into the human
body, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable
use and abuse of such product by a child, including
swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other children’s activities,
and the aging of the product; nor
(B) have any other adverse impact on public health
or safety.

The real problem is that the CPSC has been so underfunded for so many years and they were forced to cut 50% of their staff to meet their budget constraints. Additional funding has been promised, however you simply can't go to your local unemployment office and hire a "Consumer Safety Expert", so it will take many years to build up the staffing level of the CPSC.

CPSC definately does need a 3rd commissioner (who will likely be the next Chairman), but the perceived lack of action by the CPSC is not the fault of Acting Chairman Nord, it is simply due to limitations of staff who have been too busy trying to figure out how to implement and enforce this act, and have not had the time to hold hearings and gather the required scientific data to exempt some of the "common sense" products as allowed under the CPSIA.

[jennifer]

I agree that it isn't Nancy Nord's fault. I think the women deserves a medal of honor for dealing with this.

You explanation is also the perfect example of how this law is destroying everyone involved. Even if they did have the staff - how is a law written with thousands of exemptions and ammendments and handbooks make something safe? It doesn't, it makes things less safe. A few of us went to childrens apparel trade show last week. When you asked each manufacturer what their understanding of the law was they all gave a different answer. This is just one industry and one small show...how is this safe? The brands from outside the US had never even heard of CPSIA. The majority of businesses have been and are creating safe products. The idea that our children's clothing, toys, books, and bikes that they have been using for years are toxic is just false. They need to scrap CPSIA and start over.

The laws have been in place regarding lead. The CPSC has been underfunded. Heaven forbid someone in Washington admitting that they hadn't given the CPSC enough funding all of these years to enforce what was already there. Nope they had to write a new law to get re-elected oops I mean to save the children. Now they still have a limited budget, a BAD law, even more work,businesses failing,and limited products for those who are less fortunate...while none of it is keeping children safe.

[Eric H]

Kevin;

Yes, I have read the law, but Ms. Weintraub is stating this as if fabric and books had already been exempted. Did she know there was a series of deadlines and mandatory rulings leading up to (and even extending beyond) 10 Feb? Does she have any idea how people who are currently making things for market are going to plan their activities around an exemption that might happen, one day, in light of the 10 Feb requirements? If these are such "common sense", why couldn't they have understood and exempted them in the first place? The fact is that they began this campaign by stating that the CPSC had too much latitude and that the real benefit of this law was to take that latitude away from them. Now they are saying that the CPSC has plenty of latitude and the problem is that they haven't exercised it. We cannot figure the reason for their change of course, but it seems to have to do with either raw partisan politics or the inability to acknowledge that they made a mistake in hastily casting their net too wide. The law was hastily and poorly conceived and needs to be amended.

The law does not specifically exempt fabric and books. Hearings have to be held, and it is extremely likely that Ms. Weintraub and/or her fellow travelers will show up at those hearings and insist that no exemptions be granted, ever, if recent history is any example. Any suggestion otherwise will be cast as "putting profits before our childrens' safety". If you look at her Congressional testimony in support of CPSIA, you will see that she insisted on component testing, final product testing, **and** random in-process testing without demonstrating any knowledge of what would be required to meet those requirements. They also passed this knee-jerk legislation without demonstrating how many actual injuries would be prevented with the change in the law. Apparently, that is what passes for "common sense". Now she's saying that fabric will be exempted (how does she know? Does she have CPSC on the same leash as she has Rush, Waxman, Pryor, and Schakowsky?), a tacit endorsement of component testing. She is completely ignoring the fact that with very few exceptions, no products consist of 100% fabric - they have closures, dyes, etc. Thus, she continues to demonstrate little understanding of the industries actually affected by this law.

When those who actually face $100k fines and 5 year jail sentences try to figure out if their products, which could definitely be chewed, swallowed, or otherwise abused, might be exempted or not, they think they should take the conservative approach and assume that no such exemptions will be granted on that basis. If there are any exemptions granted, they will have to be granted on the basis that no lead will be in the final product to be absorbed. Since few are making plain cloth diapers, sheets, or togas, and since none of them can smell or taste lead, they have to rely on testing of the components and/or final product. The people who have done testing have found lead in surprising places - buttons, snaps, sequins, various color dyes, etc. So the question becomes whether or not we are going to be able to rely on component testing (preferred) or if they are going to continue to insist on the unit testing requirement.

An RFC was issued, and hearings and other work are underway on that question, but there was no way with the existing staffing to have executed that before 10 February. What nobody in Congress or the special interest groups has acknowledged was that -- in spite of the fact that the CPSIA granted additional budget authority -- Congress did not actually give them the money. So Congress and the special interest groups are blaming Nord for Congress' failure, claiming to find special exemptions in the law when no such exemptions have been granted in order to shut up the affected industries. To the extent that those exemptions may be granted, they will also require a shift from Weintraub's preferred testing regime (early and often) to component testing for that change to be of any significant benefit to manufacturers.

[Kevin]

I agree that the law was poorly written and that it was a kneejerk reaction to "the summer of lead". Unfortunately, when you look at the statistics, lead poisioning rarely happens, and when it does happen, the culprit is usually old wall/house paint chips, not from toys (and actually when you look at the statistics, lead poisioning dropped significantly when lead based gasoline was phased out).

I agree that an overhaul of CPSC regulations was necessary to adapt to the changing manufacturing trends, and to help fill in some of the loopholes in CPSC acts. Acting Chairman Nord proposed several modifications to the acts in her PRISM document. Some of the suggestions were implemented, others were scrapped, and the CPSC stated during the draft stages that the bill had several issues. Instead of listening, Congress chose to beat up on the CPSC for accepting travel from industry (to speak at seminars and training programs) in exotic places like NewOrleans...1 year after Huricane Katrina.

Consumer groups asked for the heavy regulations, Congress granted their request, and now they are complaining that CPSC is failing to meet the requirements of the Act when CPSC pointed out the problems from day 1.

[Carol Baicker-McKee]

Excellent discussion above. Ms. Weintraub displays her ignorance of children's books and their real life use (as well as an incomplete grasp of the exemption, which other commenters have correctly noted is not yet final) when she asserts that the exemption for ordinary books printed after 1985 addresses "almost every common sense concern" with them.

First, not all books published since 1985 are included in the exemption - books with metal, plastic, and electronic components, as well as those which are considered to be more playthings than reading material, are still subject to the testing requirements. This important detail means that the thousands, probably millions of inexpensive staple-bound (also called saddlestitched) paperbacks widely given out each year by literacy organizations like Reach Out and Read (that "prescribes" quality children's literature to needy children at check-ups), First Book, RIF, and others are subject to expensive testing both for books in the program's inventory and for future published editions. Staple-bound books are also widely used as classroom literature sets in the primary grades, are available inexpensively in outlets like the grocery story, and are sold through book clubs. Loss of these books or a significant increase in price would have dramatic impacts on literacy efforts in this country. I say "would" rather than does because the schools and literacy clubs I'm talking with are just ignorant of or choosing to ignore the law - and those are yet more flaws of this act and its implementation. Almost no one has heard of it, and it can't and won't be enforced uniformly or consistently. My sense is that unless/until there's a high profile prosecution of someone for these kinds of violations, most people will just go right on breaking the law.

Novelty books matter too. They lure reluctant readers into trying out reading, delight and stimulate for most children, and provide tactile, auditory or other sensual book experiences for children with special needs. They spark creativity, interest in engineering, and entice kids away from the other compelling but not-as-good-for-the-brain media in their environments. And they will be much more expensive and rarer going forward if they remain in the "must be tested" category.

The books printed (or published but lacking a print date) before 1985 that Ms. Weintraub dismisses so lightly are far more important than either common knowledge (and I guess common sense) dictates. These older books still make up a heavy proportion of the children's books in circulation and active use today. As other commenters have noted, most of these books are no longer in print and for many reasons, practical and financial, are unlikely to be reprinted. Losing them decimates the collections of school and public libraries, not to mention the home libraries of families. I have been unable to find any statistics about the proportion of total books that would be lost if all pre-1985 were thrown out today, but it would be considerable - quite possibly as much as half - and maybe more - of all the books still used by kids. (Based very imprecisely on figures from librarians, schools, and families I've talked with.)

Older children's books also have considerable value (in the useful sense) to historians, current children's book writers and illustrators, librarians, teachers, art collectors, and others interested in children's literature, the history of childhood, child development, art history, and more. If they're discarded as hazardous waste, they're just as lost to the adults who need and use them as they are to the children, and since the standard for preservation is too old and valuable to be used by a child, few copies would qualify and those that would would be out of reach financially for most of the potential users.

Older books are treasured by families and teachers with low budgets and a strong interest in building a large, diverse, high quality home or school library, for several reasons: first, they were typically better made, on better quality paper, with more white space and beautiful design, better bindings, better quality printing, endpapers, bookcloth covers instead of just paper, extra front and back matter, etc.; second, they can be found very cheaply, often for just pennies, at garage and estate sales, on amazon and ebay, through thrift stores and library sales, and more; third, they're good for the environment - by reusing a perfectly good copy of a classic rather than a newer reprint, you save trees, ink, and space in a landfill.

The final irony is that the effects of lead poisoning seem to be affected by a child's environment; kids from stimulating environments suffer fewer deficits at the same blood lead level as kids from intellectually impoverished environments (see work by Bellinger, a major lead researcher); these findings are consistent with animal experiments on lead poisoning. And what's probably the cheapest, easiest way to give a child a more mentally stimulating environment? Fill his home with books and read to him.