Following the recall of millions of toys from China because of lead paint and other hazards, Congress got its act together in 2008 and passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Bipartisan majorities rallied around the idea that the government should ensure that products — whether they’re made abroad or here — won’t sicken or maim American consumers or their children.
The new Republican-led House seems determined to roll back those protections. As part of their slash-and-burn continuing resolution, they cut all the financing — some $3 million this year — for a core provision of the safety bill: a database where consumers could report product hazards and the public could check products before buying them.
House Republicans are also pushing to scale back the requirement for third-party testing for lead and other hazards in products sold to children. Some have also proposed limiting the new protections to products for children under 6 or 7, rather than up to 12 years of age.
Arguments against all of these provisions are part of a standard antiregulation litany. Businesses warn that the hazard database would open the door to bogus charges and lawsuits. They claim that third-party testing of children’s products is proving to be too costly and that some should not be tested at all for things like lead because children are unlikely to eat them.
The concern about frivolous lawsuits is a predictable canard. The database was designed with safeguards to avoid bogus claims and keep lawyers from trawling for clients. Tests will, of course, increase manufacturers’ costs. But that must be set against the enormous costs incurred by families and society when a child is poisoned or hurt by a dangerous toy. Exposing older children to such risks should also be unacceptable.
And there is a lot of lead out there. Since the new law has passed, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued 26 recalls because of lead paint in toys.
Some provisions of the safety law could be tweaked. For instance, there may be ways to help the smallest of toy makers gain access to low-cost lead testing. There might be a way to exempt products from testing if they very clearly do not pose a lead-related hazard.
The new consumer safety law was a much-needed response to the Bush administration’s antiregulatory fervor and followed years of neglect of the regulators. By 2007, the staff at the safety commission had fallen to 385, down by more than half since 1980.
The recall in 2007 of millions of hazardous children’s products imported from China proved that a gutted safety commission couldn’t do its job. Why would anyone want to make that same mistake again?
