The Consumer Product Safety Commission is supposed to make sure toys and other consumer products are safe. They recalled 472 products last year. That's a pretty good record for a Lilliputian agency that has a staff of only 400. This is George Bush's dream -- shrinking the size of the government. CPSC started out life with 800 staff. If Bush's budget recommendations had been adopted by Congress it would have had to cut another 19 positions -- 5%. For once Congress didn't go along. They increased CPSC budget from $63 million to $80 million. The agency's head, former industry lawyer Nancy Nord, opposed the increase. But that isn't the only thing she opposes. A bill coming up in the Senate will increase CPSC's scope and authority:
Nord, a former industry lawyer, opposes key provisions, including a total ban on lead, and a requirement that the CPSC make consumer product hazard complaints public without prior approval by the manufacturer, as is the case now."Anything that would disincent people to come and talk to us early and often . . . would not be a helpful thing for this agency to experience," she said.
On the lead ban, she said she is "hopeful that [the Senate] will give us that regulatory flexibility. If they don't, then I have to say, you're just starting to see the beginning of recalls." (Washington Post)
Disincent? Is this a word? I assume it means, removing the putrid scent of corruption that emanates from almost everything the Bush administration does. No wonder she wants to hide complaints. And the lead ban? The rationale seems to be that if lead in toys is banned they are going to have to recall them. Duh.
What a bunch of dangerous losers.
- Log in to post comments
According to MBA Jargon Watch, disincent is "The third member of the incent-incentivize-disincent axis of evil."
RE: is disincent a word?
Not out of five online dictionaries it isnt.
So the axis of evil cannot exist.
I recently filed a notice of intent to sue several Chinese manufacturers and distributors of seriously lead tainted toys to mom and pop stores in the Dallas inner city, not surprisingly the poorest part of town. I sent a spreadsheet outlining the amount of excessive lead in each toy along with the demand. The Consumer Product Safety Act requires that I send by registered mail my notice to both the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSU")as well as the Attorney General of the United States giving them 30 days to act before I can sue. Unbelievably, on the 30th day, when I could sue to force the recall of the toys, I received a letter from some lower lever CPSC lawyer telling me my notice was inadequate because I did not say WHICH Lead Statute was being violated. Give me a break-it is their job to know their own Act and to provide that information to the public at large. My guess is that if the lead toys were bought by that CPSC lawyer, he would somehow know which statute applied.
The current state of affairs of our CPSC is sad and offensive.
I agree Pezz. But its not just this administration. The administration(s) since inception have been more reactive than proactive. They should have been testing before the products reached our shelves. Its not just the administrations either, its Congress.
For what we have pissed away in "earmarks" in the last 3 years, we could have funded the CPSC budget forty times over. They took in 63 BILLION last year, and it will be increased another 880 million in 08. I dont see too terribly much wrong with that except to ask how much lead is there in our bloodstreams now?
Our rants are always founded in the discovery of what my Dad used to call the "something." Something is always wrong, always screwed up in this case something is dangerous. Then we respond to the something. The something is that we worried about lead paint, but didnt look anywhere else for years after that debaucle.
63 billion and we still got hit. For one hundred billion we will find we are damaged genetically. Something else to consider.
The problem is not with CPSC. You keep looking to big government to help you. The regulations for toys are all online. Lead content used in toys is under 16 CFR 1303 under the Consumer Product Safety Act, the allowed limit is 600 ppm.
All the retailers and importers have the responsibility to make sure product meets CPSC regulations, as a well as the industry standard ASTM F963. If they do not, it is NOT the Chinese manufacturers who sells to 150 different countries you blame, it the AMERICAN company who bought the product for 1 dollar, shipped it to the US and then sells it to your children for 10 dollars.
And frankly, unless your child eats toys, lead levels in paint a bit over 600 ppm are not a big problem. In order to test the paint, labs need to scrape it off the toy with razor blades. But the standard is what it is, those who sell product in the US, need to follow American law, and if they do not follow it, they need to be punished. So blame the right people. They live right here in the US, you do not have to sue someone 10,000 miles away, and you do not need the CPSC to do it for you, just get one of those testing kits and when you get a positive, get a lawyer who might willing to take your case for free, or just report it to the CPSC (remember, 16 CFR 1303).
PFT: So who will test them? The consumer? And why do you assume lead is not a hazard in these toys? A chip of lead paint is enough to poison a child and every bit of lead is harmful. There is no detected lower threshold for lead effects. I don't know if you have children, but kids put everything in their mouths. I don't want to test every toy I buy for my grandchildren, nor can I. How do you know those drugstore kits are accurate? (hint: they aren't). But I guess you don't want them regulated either. Is it my responsibility also to test the restaurant food for microbes, the air for particulates, the water for E. coli? How about asbestos? Your responsibility? And why would a lawyer take a case like that? There's no money to be made in preventing my children from being poisoned. They only make money after they've been poisoned and are so badly hurt it's worth while.