CPSC Plays Shell Game with the Truth
Posted by Valerie on March 18, 2009
Better go read Overlawyered now, and be sure to check out Walter Olson’s evidences, here and here.
I’m angry. The CPSC has repeatedly stated that pre-1985 children’s books should be sequestered and not distributed to children. So Wolfson repeats the known, on-the-record CPSC policy to AP News–and then his statement must be retracted?
It certainly wasn’t retracted for error! This is the known, written, on-the-record policy. This wasn’t anything new–or shocking, to those in the know–and the only benefit of retraction is to hide the policy from the American people for awhile longer and limit number of phone calls that would otherwise be fielded at the CPSC and on Capitol Hill today!
Read the following written record–and tell me why you think Wolfson’s statement had to be pulled by the CPSC.
“…we should issue guidance to libraries and sellers of used children’s books, to sellers of other used products, and to small businesses in general.
“Libraries are extremely concerned about the impact of the lead provision on the children’s books on their shelves. I believe that our staff has come up with a supportable ‘bright line’ to guide libraries as to what books we will deem not to pose a problem and which ones should be sequestered until we get more information from the publishing and ink manufacturing industries. The book publishers have asserted that children’s books pose no problems, but we know that the ink used in children’s books prior to the 1980’s did contain lead.
“We have not gotten the kind of information we need about all the components of children’s books to be able to issue them a blanket exemption. The industry has made assertions and done very limited testing, but the Act requires more, as it should, before we can exempt a children’s product from the lead content requirements of the law. We cannot act on the ‘everyone knows children’s books don’t contain lead’ and ‘historically there has never been a problem with lead in children’s books’ assertions, particularly when we now know that children’s books have indeed contained lead in the past.”
Announcing the CPSIA Enforcement Policy
The Commission today is taking action that it has been considering for some time and in response, in part, to congressional urging, to give interim guidance on certain issues relating to the new lead content limits, which we hope will aid a number of enterprises, from libraries and sellers of new and used children’s books to small crafters and apparent makers to manufacturers of electronics devices intended primarily for children.
CPSC Spells Out [CPSIA] Enforcement Policy….
“Manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers should also be aware that CPSC will not impose penalties against anyone for making, importing, distributing, or selling…an ordinary children’s book printed after 1985.”
These materials can be used and sold[:] Children’s books printed after 1985 that are conventionally printed and intended to be read, as opposed to used for play.
. . . . .
Books–”ordinary” children’s titles, e. g. paperbacks and hardbacks…OK to sell, if printed after 1985.
From Slide Presentation Prepared by CPSC Staff
Ordinary Books
- Children’s books printed after 1985, conventionally printed, intended to be read
- Limited staff analysis showed the presence of lead in inks in older books
- Children’s Books have limited useful life (approx 20 years)
Wolfson puts the written, on-the-record TRUTH in the news stream, and the CPSC has to jump in and pull it out? Does anyone care to explain?
♥♥♥♥♥: Or do I just have some sort of a Sandman fixation? 07/11/09 06:49pm
Carol Baicker-McKee said,
I too find this change of “guidance” puzzling. Does this mean you’re safely back in business? What about the AGs?
By the way Valerie, have you contacted any AGs about how they’re going to implement the law (follow the CPSC guidelines and precendents or interpret it themselves)? I’ve tried to contact PA’s AG, but so far no response and there’s no mention of the law at all on the AG website, not even under “consumer safety.”
Valerie said,
I was guessing that they just didn’t want it in the paper, not that they were dropping book restrictions. That would be great! I’m not sure CPSIA-as-written would allow it though.
I just called the WI AG’s office. They’d never heard of it and said that they basically don’t look for consumer protection cases but get their referrals from the WI Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection.
I called DATCP and left a message.
Mars Feeney said,
“…I would like to make one thing quite clear…I never explain anything.”
Mary Poppins, of course, had the advantage of being a fictional character who’s actions were rooted in a supernatural wisdom.
The CPSC is at a bit of a disadvantage here because they are real people dealing a law rooted in nearly TOTAL IGNORANCE OF REALITY.
Perhaps if congress took a little time away from pointing fingers and read a little Mary Poppins they might come to their senses. However, I can’t recommend it as I don’t want to be an accessory to a crime.
happymom4 said,
As I said, “With real life this interesting, who needs fiction?!” This reads like some kind of a thriller mystery. . .. Guess those of us who have lost our businesses sewing custom-made one of a kind kid’s and doll clothing will have to take up writing novels based on CPSIA and the ensuing fiasco, eh?! That old “When life hands you a lemon . .. .” adage.
Rich Cartwright said,
I am nowhere on the political right, but CPSC apparently
has added firefighters of the Farenheit 451 variety to its staff. As for the Alfred Griswold quote on books: don’t bet on it. We have just crossed into the new millennium.
Add A Comment