Scientist material I am not, but even I know that the claims made by supporters of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act are bogus. However, being non-scientific I didn't know how to "prove" anything. I just have intellect and logic on my side.
Thankfully, other people recognize the fallacies found in the CPSIA also understand and know science. They can point out the exact errors in CPSIA thinking. One such person, Michael D. Shaw (Executive Vice President of Interscan Corporation) wrote an interesting article for HealthNewsDigest.com, Disrupting The -Endocrine Disruptor- Hypothesis.
Shaw explained several of the fallacies in arguments supporting the need for the CPSIA and in the methodology of tests advocates use to show the "inherent" dangers of phthalates. The law and its supporters worry about possible dangers to children, dangers caused by certain materials including lead and phtalates. Dangers abound in this world, but the over-reaction to things that really are already controlled can be worse than perceived dangers.
One point Shaw made, with which I definitely agree, is as follows:
At the heart of this is the so-called precautionary principle which states: "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."
To the uninitiated, this principle may sound good, but in practice there have been virtually no demonstrated benefits to balance the well-documented failures and even catastrophes. All but the most strident Greens now agree that the banning of DDT was a tragic mistake, leading to the deaths of millions of Africans from malaria. Closer to the present, a mostly moronic Congress was quick to exploit the lead-poisoning death of young Jarnell Brown, with the patently absurd and destructive Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act—quite possibly the worst law passed in the last 50 years.
I recommend everyone read Mr. Shaw's article complete article found here. The scientific information alone is worth the read.
Personally, I'm still afraid that my publishing house, 4RV Publishing, libraries, and many other small businesses and households are in danger of prosecution under this "quite possibly the worse law passed in the last 50 years."