I hadn't planned on blogging again until I announced my VBT schedule, not the full schedule already posted, but my posts about Kathy Stemke. However, something happened that caused my ire to rise.
I posted about the Consumer Product Safety Inspection Act of 2008 several times:
Will we lose a treasure of children's lit?
CPSIA and libraries - breaking the law?
What? The CPSC didn't say what it said? Libraries are not criminals?
The fight against the CPSIA continues
Those listed above are just a few of the many posts about the CPSIA, which became law as a result of Mattel importing toys from China with heavy lead content in their paint, causing illness and death.
Small companies are folding as a result, because the massive law requires third party testing, expensive and prohibitive testing.
Oh, but wait, one major company, the one that caused all the trouble, gets a waiver. The law doesn't apply to them. They don't have to have their products, whether imported or made in the U.S., tested by a third party. That's right, Mattel was granted a waiver.
Quoted from Mattel gets a CPSIA waiver(also found on News Inferno.com):
After consumers discovered an influx of lead-tainted toys imported by Mattel and other companies, Congress acted to strengthen protections through the Consumer Protection Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). The legislation created almost impossible hurdles for small manufacturers and resellers for testing products, while earlier this month the CPSC announced it would send inspectors fanning out across the USA to enforce the laws in thrift shops. Now one of the companies that created the problem in the first place has gotten a waiver from the CPSIA’s requirements for third-party testing:
Toy-makers, clothing manufacturers and other companies selling products for young children are submitting samples to independent laboratories for safety tests. But the nation’s largest toy maker, Mattel, isn’t being required to do the same.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently, and quietly, granted Mattel’s request to use its own labs for testing that is required under a law Congress passed last summer in the wake of a rash of recalls of toys contaminated by lead. Six of those toys were produced by Mattel Inc., and its subsidiary Fisher-Price. …
Mattel is getting a competitive advantage, Green said, because smaller companies must pay independent labs to do the tests. Testing costs can run from several hundred dollars to many thousands, depending on the test and the toy or product.
Mattel had to recall more than 2 million toys from the market after inspectors discovered lead in the imported products. Now they claim that their “firewalled” labs will protect consumers and block out “corporate influence”. Where are the labs that Mattel will use? Mexico, Malaysia, Indonesia, and China — and China is where the dangerous toys originated.
Oh, yes, our government is so fair and helps small businesses and individuals -- sure, sure, and I have some beach front property on the outskirts of Oklahoma City, and I don't mean the Great Salt Plains.
Ish! Big guys get bailouts and special considerations, but the rest of us, individuals and small business, get to pay for everything and get nothing but that large knife in the back.
Let's let everyone we can know how angry we are.
.
Showing posts with label Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Show all posts
Friday, August 28, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Science and the CPSIA
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."
.
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."
.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
What? The CPSC didn't say what it said? Libraries are not criminals?
What! I've heard of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, but the latest news is astounding and more confusing than ever. The CPSC doesn't know what the CPSIA is supposed to do, and members of the CPSC don't know what each other does or should do.
As Walter Olson on Overlawyered, "CPSC: No, we didn’t ask libraries to pull pre-1985 books," wrote, an associated press article yesterday quoted Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Wolfson's message, as found also here this morning, stated that libraries should take steps to put pre-1985 books out of reach for children.
Now,commission chief of staff, Joe Martyak, says that Wolfson “misspoke." He says the commission never made any such recommendation. Huh?
Another CPSC commissioner, Thomas Moore, declared a few weeks ago that a large section of older books should be be “sequestered” from children for the time being.
When will the government admit defeat and scrap this poorly written law that does not protect children but harm them?
For updates on the CPSIA debacle, Overlawyered is an excellent source.
Are you as confused as I am? Apparently the CPSC is confused, too. Hmmm ... maybe the members ate too many lead filled books as adults.
.
As Walter Olson on Overlawyered, "CPSC: No, we didn’t ask libraries to pull pre-1985 books," wrote, an associated press article yesterday quoted Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Wolfson's message, as found also here this morning, stated that libraries should take steps to put pre-1985 books out of reach for children.
Now,commission chief of staff, Joe Martyak, says that Wolfson “misspoke." He says the commission never made any such recommendation. Huh?
Another CPSC commissioner, Thomas Moore, declared a few weeks ago that a large section of older books should be be “sequestered” from children for the time being.
When will the government admit defeat and scrap this poorly written law that does not protect children but harm them?
For updates on the CPSIA debacle, Overlawyered is an excellent source.
Are you as confused as I am? Apparently the CPSC is confused, too. Hmmm ... maybe the members ate too many lead filled books as adults.
.
CPSIA and libraries - breaking the law?
The "big brother" federal government fears lead may exist in children's books. The operative word here is "may." We can find no evidence of anyone, child or otherwise, being harmed by ingesting books. However, those in power, in their infinite wisdom, decided that many items not known for containing lead or are not eatable are dangerous to children -- including books. The Consumer Product Safety Commission finally announced that ordinary books printed after 1984 are probably safe.
Now the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, as translated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, requires that children's books (written for children twelve and under) printed before 1985 are to be destroyed or placed where children cannot access them. Of course until recently, the law was interpreted to cover all books published for children under thirteen.
Therefore, libraries were "urged" to take children's books printed before 1985 off their shelves or make those books not accessible until the federal agency "investigates" whether vintage books contain unsafe levels of lead. (Side note: What are unsafe levels of lead in items not digested?)
CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said libraries can safely lend any children’s book printed in 1986 or later…. Until the testing is done, the nation’s more than 116,000 public and school libraries “should take steps to ensure that the children aren’t accessing those books,” according to Wlfson. “Steps can be taken to put them in an area on hold until the Consumer Product Safety Commission can give further guidance.”
However, most libraries are not complying, as stated in CPSC Demands that Libraries Remove Books. A local television station had a segment on the nine o'clock news about libraries having more children checking out books than in the past. There in video were shelves after shelves filled with older children's books, and - horror of horrors - children were handling them, reading them, checking them out, but not eating even one, not even a nibble.
As Valerie wrote in the entry posted March 17, 2009, "Few, if any, libraries are complying, and many librarians are ridiculing the recommendation as alarmist. Even the nation’s premier medical sleuths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, say any danger from lead in children’s books is slight."
Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the American Library Association’s Washington office, said, “We’re talking about tens of millions of copies of children’s books that are perfectly safe. I wish a reasonable, rational person would just say, `This is stupid. What are we doing?’” Where are any reasonable, rational people in Washington?
Has the federal government made our public and school libraries criminals? Where can that reasonable, sane person be found?
.
Now the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, as translated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, requires that children's books (written for children twelve and under) printed before 1985 are to be destroyed or placed where children cannot access them. Of course until recently, the law was interpreted to cover all books published for children under thirteen.
Therefore, libraries were "urged" to take children's books printed before 1985 off their shelves or make those books not accessible until the federal agency "investigates" whether vintage books contain unsafe levels of lead. (Side note: What are unsafe levels of lead in items not digested?)
CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said libraries can safely lend any children’s book printed in 1986 or later…. Until the testing is done, the nation’s more than 116,000 public and school libraries “should take steps to ensure that the children aren’t accessing those books,” according to Wlfson. “Steps can be taken to put them in an area on hold until the Consumer Product Safety Commission can give further guidance.”
However, most libraries are not complying, as stated in CPSC Demands that Libraries Remove Books. A local television station had a segment on the nine o'clock news about libraries having more children checking out books than in the past. There in video were shelves after shelves filled with older children's books, and - horror of horrors - children were handling them, reading them, checking them out, but not eating even one, not even a nibble.
As Valerie wrote in the entry posted March 17, 2009, "Few, if any, libraries are complying, and many librarians are ridiculing the recommendation as alarmist. Even the nation’s premier medical sleuths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, say any danger from lead in children’s books is slight."
Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the American Library Association’s Washington office, said, “We’re talking about tens of millions of copies of children’s books that are perfectly safe. I wish a reasonable, rational person would just say, `This is stupid. What are we doing?’” Where are any reasonable, rational people in Washington?
Has the federal government made our public and school libraries criminals? Where can that reasonable, sane person be found?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)