UPDATE: THE CPSC RELEASE: Excerpt:

Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards. The new safety law does not require resellers to test children’s products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold.

ORIGINAL POST: The CPSC is expected to issue a release today in response to a growing number of complaints from small toymakers and second-hand and consignment stores that it has failed to explain how to comply with new limits on lead in toys and children's products that take effect on 10 February. Yesterday, U.S. PIRG and other leading groups sent a letter to the CPSC demanding clarification. Austin American-Statesman story today. NBC17 (Durham, NC) with video. Los Angeles Times story. Our previous blog. While some elements of the toy industry campaign appear responsible and seeking clarification, some opponents of the important new law are using hysteria to rev up the issue, referring to 10 February as "National Bankruptcy Day" and the need to stop the new "supercharged" CPSC's "toy police." Excerpt from our consumer letter:

The vacuum of implementation information, as well as the proliferation of misinformation regarding actual testing requirements and the cost of testing is leading to confusion and fear. The public counts on the CPSC to protect them from dangerous products. Now CPSC must take the initiative to allay their fears by providing prompt, common-sense, and explicit interpretations regarding exemptions to CPSIA stipulations, guidance as to the realistic cost of testing, and education regarding compliance with the CPSIA for retailers, including thrift and consignment stores.

The CBS Early Show did a story (watch video and read story) on the CPSC's decision to delay a Congressional ban on toxic phthalates in toys yesterday featuring U.S. PIRG Public Health Advocate Liz Hitchcock. Previous blog has details on lawsuit by allies Public Citizen and NRDC seeking to enforce the law.

In case you missed it, this weekend Saturday Night Live Weekend Update anchor (and Hillary Clinton impersonator) Amy Poehler, just back from having a baby herself, gave another SNL shoutout to PIRG's annual Trouble In Toyland reports--

POEHLER: "The New York Public Interest Research Group said this week that one in three popular children's toys contain hazardous chemicals such as lead, arsenic and mercury. The worst: 'I Don't Feel So Good Elmo.'"

We're proud to have had our work hit a few other popular shows over the years. "What are balloons?" was once the Final Jeopardy answer (in a special kids' tournament on the show) to the question: "PIRG finds these to be the worst choking hazard." And about 6-7 years ago, the plot of Law & Order featured a visit to NYPIRG's offices after the murder of a NYPIRG intern who'd been conducting an investigation into dangerous practices. The late actor so associated with the show, Jerry Orbach, uttered the immortal (to us, anyway) line: "NYPIRG? What's that?"

Our allies at NRDC and Public Citizen have filed a lawsuit (here is the shorter news release) challenging a recent letter opinion from the CPSC general counsel to plastics and toy industry lawyers telling them that they can continue to sell toys laden with toxic phthalates until they run out, even though the clear opinion of Congressional leaders and bill sponsors is that the new law prohibits the manufacture, sale or importation of toys containing more than trace amounts of the toxic chemicals after February 10, 2009. Congressional conferees on the bill have sent at least three letters to the CPSC challenging its view (previous blog). Since that blog, chief House sponsor Bobby Rush (D-IL) has added his own letter to the letters to the CPSC already mentioned -- one from conferee Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and another jointly from phthalate amendment sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein, joined by two House conferees, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and by bill co-sponsor Rep. Diane DeGette (D-CO).

Our colleagues at the Michigan-based Ecology Center have released their latest list and searchable database of toxic toys at their site healthytoys.org. They use an XRF gun, which is an excellent (but expensive) screening device for lead and other toxic heavy metals that's being rolled out by a number of manufacturers. CPSC inspectors and state officials are also using them. Excerpt from the Ecology Center release:

The Ecology Center determined that 1/3 of the toys they tested had "high" or "medium" levels of chemicals of concern this year. Lead was found in 20 percent of the toys tested, including 54 products (3.5 percent) that exceeded the 600 parts per million (ppm) state legal limit set last year and 164 (10.7 percent) above the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended ceiling of 40 ppm. Children's jewelry remains the most contaminated product category. "There is simply no place for toxic chemicals in toys," said Mike Shriberg, Ph.D., Ecology Center's Policy Director.

Anny Shin reports in today's Washington Post that the CPSC says that Some Toys With Banned Plastics Will Stay on Market. We don't think so. The story is based on a letter opinion to industry lawyers from Consumer Product Safety Commission general counsel Cheryl Falvey who says essentially that because consumer product safety standards have previously been interpreted to apply only to products manufactured after a ban date, that it's ok to keep selling inventory stocks of toys laden with toxic phthalates after the February 2009 ban on toxic phthalate chemicals kicks in. Funny thing is that Falvey's letter ignores and does not even discuss the bold-face underlined words in Section 108 of the new statute that says:

Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute in commerce, or import into the United States any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP).

In today's New York Times Magazine, Gardiner Harris explains in a detailed story that the once gold-standard U.S. FDA has a growing "Safety Gap". He argues that the FDA is under-funded, that it hasn't kept up with the globalization of commerce, and that it cannot protect us from dangerous products, especially those from China:

But are the Chinese factories safe? Who knows? [...] China has in recent years exported poisonous toothpaste, deadly dog food, toys made with lead paint and tainted fish. In one infamous example this spring, Chinese manufacturers substituted a cheap fake for the dried pig intestines used to make the drug heparin, which is given to dialysis and surgery patients to prevent blood clotting. [...] The F.D.A. regulates more than $1 trillion worth of consumer goods, which amounts to about 25 cents of every consumer dollar spent in this country. This includes $466 billion in food sales, $275 billion in drugs, $60 billion in cosmetics and $18 billion in vitamin supplements.[...] Even the F.D.A.’s staunchest defenders now acknowledge that something is terribly wrong.

A peer-reviewed subcommittee report prepared for tomorrow's FDA Science Board meeting rips the agency's recent draft assessment (7mB pdf) finding that the toxic chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) was generally safe. From the subcommittee report:

Coupling together the available qualitative and quantitative information (including application of uncertainty factors) provides a sufficient scientific basis to conclude that the Margins of Safety defined by FDA as “adequate” are, in fact, inadequate.

lacks an adequate characterization of uncertainties

does not articulate reasonable and appropriate scientific support

has important limitations.

Although the Food and Drug Administration will not reveal who prepared its draft, the agency's own documents show that the work was done primarily by those with the most to gain by downplaying concerns about the safety of the chemical. That includes Stephen Hentges, executive director of the American Chemistry Council's group on bisphenol A, who commissioned a review of all studies of the neurotoxicity of bisphenol A and submitted it to the FDA. The FDA then used that report as the foundation for its evaluation of the chemical on neural and behavioral development. The American Chemistry Council is a trade group representing chemical manufacturers.

If you read the subcommittee report, you can detect a high level of scientific outrage that the FDA in effect stacked the deck by excluding numerous peer-reviewed studies without cause, even though the assessment committee deemed them adequate.

Consistent and credible criteria for study inclusion, recommended by the Subcommittee, would be to use those studies that are judged as “adequate” by CERHR in the FDA hazard, dose-response and safety assessment of BPA. In addition, several studies of effects of BPA on adult humans and animal species that were published after the draft assessment was finished should be considered for inclusion in the final assessment.

More in BPA Ruling Flawed, Panel Says by Annys Shin in the Washington Post).

Annys Shin of the Washington Post is reporting in a story Tighter Lead Rule for Kids' Items that the CPSC will announce today Monday a legal opinion that confirms that the new Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act requires that all children's products containing lead in amounts greater than 600 ppm must be off the shelves by February, and will require that product previously manufactured and in inventory be destroyed. The bad news is that at a recent public meeting, the CPSC all but told industry lawyers and lobbyists that -- (paraphrase) "except for toys with toxic lead (and probably also toxic phthalates) where that pesky Congress has boxed us in, not to worry as we intend to go out of our way and interpret all other effective dates for all new product standards as loosely as possible, so you can keep on selling dangerous products you've already made." I noted this pro-industry slant in my blog after that meeting, as did Annys Shin in her blog. Page 11 of this CPSC slideshow from that meeting explains the rationale for lead and phthalates; previous pages explain why other dangerous products may be treated with less deference to safety.

The CPSC has a new gateway webpage for all things - rulemakings, comment deadlines, notices and more -- related to the implementation of the landmark Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). Since the new law has some very tight regulatory timelines, the page also allows you to sign up for either an old-school email list or a more modern Web 2.0 RSS feed to learn about updates to the page.

I just left some of my consumer colleagues at the second half of an all day CPSC seminar on the implementation of the landmark CPSC Improvement Act. The event is being held in an auditorium at the Commerce Department downtown. The building is named for Herbert Hoover but seemed older than that. In addition to the scant ten of us, the other 400 plus seats were full of industry lobbyists. Most of the questioners from the industry seemed to be asking the CPSC to interpret the law in a way that would allow them to keep selling existing but soon-to-be non-compliant inventory. In addition, one CPSC official seemed to directly suggest that for certain products that would become banned hazardous substances six months after August 14 (when the President signed the bill) it would be best to leave the room and book some containers on ships for export as soon as possible.

My analysis is that the CPSC's regulatory culture has always leaned toward interpreting the law prospectively -- that is, in favor of reading newer, more stringent laws to only apply to future products -- but that in some of the important provisions of the CPSC Improvement Act it is clear that the Congress did not intend them to continue to do that. Nevertheless, I got the sense by the tone of many of the agency comments -- and I hope I am wrong -- that they appear ready to bend over backwards wherever possible to find a tortured statutory interpretation that is favorable to continued sale of existing but-soon-to-be-non-compliant inventory.

UPDATE 2: Washington Post story. UPDATE: Here is the 8mB Draft BPA report and here is more material on the September meeting it is for. (The report is the second link (draft assessment) from the top if you want to look there before clicking on an 8mB link.)

Original post: The AP is running a wire story that the FDA has a draft report claiming that the toxic chemical BPA is safe. I wouldn't be surprised if industry advisors to FDA have leaked the draft report, hoping to confuse the world. Regardless, even if the draft becomes final, we'd agree with toxics expert Pete Myers, who is quoted in the AP story:

"It's ironic FDA would choose to ignore dozens of studies funded by (the National Institutes of Health) -- this country's best scientists -- and instead rely on flawed studies from industry," said Pete Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences.

This morning the President signed the landmark CPSC Reform Act. Link to our news release; link to Marketwatch.com with details; Washington Post Checkout blog; ABC news; AP wire; Bill sponsor Senator Mark Pryor's release. Our toy safety pages. Here are many of the highlights, from Marketwatch:

Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director with U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said highlights of the law are the phthalates ban, the public database that reverses the CPSC's "longstanding culture of secrecy," and the added testing for toy hazards and certification for children's products. "These broad new protections are all in addition to doubling the agency's funding over five years, adding staff, increasing its civil-penalty authority and adding other tools to prevent dangerous imports and hold wrongdoers accountable," Mierzwinski said. "Finally, the bill preserves state toxic hazard warning laws and retains broad powers of state attorneys general to act as tough consumer cops, despite industry efforts to weaken their authority."

According to numerous sources not including the White House, the President is expected to sign the landmark product safety reform legislation this morning (without a ceremony), if he hasn't already.

The executive branch watchdog group known as OMBWatch has a summary of the new CPSC Reform Act available. We expect that the president will sign the bill this week when he returns from the Olympics. The OMBWatch story links to its earlier analysis Product Safety Regulator Hobbled by Decades of Negligence, a useful summary of the agency's history by the numbers.

In a stunning victory, the House tonight passed the CPSC Reform Act conference report 424-1 (Ron Paul (R-TX) voted no). The pro-consumer vote is YEA. Action now shifts to the Senate, where approval is assured, if we can get the bill to the floor past unrelated partisan difficulties. Outside the House of Representatives, from left, Celia Wexler of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL, a conferee and consumer champion) and Liz Hitchcock of U.S. PIRG celebrate following the vote. AP story by Jim Abrams via Washington Post. Our coalition release follows the jump:

*Consumers Union * Consumer Federation of America *
* Kids in Danger * Union of Concerned Scientists *
* U.S. Public Interest Research Group * Public Citizen *
* National Research Center for Women & Families *

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Ami Gadhia, CU (202) 462-6262
Rachel Weintraub, CFA (202) 387-6121
Elizabeth Hitchcock, U.S. PIRG (202) 546-9707
David Arkush, PC (202) 550-0107
Celia Wexler, UCS (202) 331-6952
Nancy Cowles, KID (312) 595-0649
Paul Brown, NRCWF (202) 223-4000 x103

Consumer Groups Applaud House Passage of Strong Product Safety Bill;
Urge Senate to Pass Reform Measure this week

Washington, D.C.—Today, consumer, public interest and scientific groups applaud the U.S. House of Representatives for passing strong product safety reform legislation that would overhaul the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The bi- partisan Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act will make consumer products safer by requiring that toys and infant products be tested before they are sold, and by banning lead and phthalates in toys. The bill also will create a publicly accessible consumer complaint database, give the CPSC the resources it needs to protect the public, increase civil penalties that CPSC can assess against violators of CPSC laws, and protect whistleblowers who report product safety defects.

In approving this sweeping reform measure, the House of Representatives put children’s and consumer’s safety first by enacting the most significant improvements of the Consumer Product Safety Commission since the agency was established in the 1970’s. The Senate must vote on this measure this week, before the August recess, the groups urged.

“After CPSC has suffered death by a thousand cuts, the House gave the Commission a new life with increased resources, authority and transparency to better ensure the safety of consumer products. We urge the Senate to complete this vital task and pass this unprecedented product safety reform this week before August recess,” said Rachel Weintraub, Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel with Consumer Federation of America.

“The countdown to safer products has hopefully begun in earnest today with the bi-partisan House passage of sweeping product safety reforms. The Senate must also pass this legislation this week, and the President should sign on the dotted line so that the overhaul of the beleaguered CPSC can finally start. That's when consumers will start to have more confidence in the safety of the products they buy,” said Ami Gadhia, Policy Counsel with Consumers Union.

“We applaud the House for recognizing that toxic chemicals like lead and phthalates have no business in our children’s toys,” said U.S. PIRG Public Health Advocate Elizabeth Hitchcock. “This bill is a huge victory for America's littlest consumers in the face of ExxonMobil and the chemical industry’s efforts to gut it. The Senate should waste no time in sending it to the President’s desk.”

"House passage of this bill brings critical safety reforms to within steps of the finish line," said David Arkush, Director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division. "Now the Senate needs to finish the job."

“The House did the right thing by banning phthalates—chemicals that may be associated with reproductive problems and cancer—in children’s toys and products,” said Dr. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families. “The House put children’s safety first.”

“Scientists working on consumer product safety will also benefit from this new legislation,” said Dr. Francesca T. Grifo, director, Scientific Integrity Program, Union of Concerned Scientists. “A stronger Inspector General and a website for CPSC employees to anonymously report their concerns, along with whistleblower protections for those who report about unsafe products, will contribute to more transparency and accountability at this agency,” added Grifo.

“With today’s House passage of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, we are one step closer to establishing a child safety system that will keep our children safe from tainted toys and collapsing cribs,” stated Nancy Cowles, executive director of Kids In Danger. “We now urge the Senate and the President to act swiftly to get these life-saving measures in place.”

The House and Senate conferees on the product safety measure concluded action this weekend. The conference report on the legislation must now be approved by the President for his signature. Here are some examples of how this legislation changes and improves the safety of products sold in the United States:

• Lead will be essentially eliminated from toys and children’s products.

• Consumers will have access to a publicly-accessible database to report and learn about hazards posed by unsafe products.

• Toys and other children’s products will be required to be tested for safety before they are sold.

• State Attorneys General will have the necessary authority to enforce product safety laws.

• CPSC has the authority to levy more significant civil penalties against violators of its safety regulations, which will help deter wrongdoing.

• Toxic phthalates will be been banned from children’s products.

• Whistleblowers will be granted important protections.

• CPSC will receive substantial increases in its resources – including its staffing levels, its laboratory and computer resources and its various authorities to conduct recalls and take other actions - going forward.

-30-

Consumer Federation of America (consumerfed.org); Consumers Union (consumersunion.org); Kids In Danger (kidsindanger.org); National Research Center For Women & Families (center4research.org); Public Citizen (citizen.org); U.S. PIRG (uspirg.org)

Today's New York Times editorial Protecting the Littlest Consumers urges final action on the CPSC Reform Act:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission reform bill, which now has strong bipartisan support, should move this week through both the House and the Senate. President Bush, whose safety commission has been so tragically inept, should then quickly sign this important bill.

The final conference report on the CPSC Reform Act is available. It's a 1.8 mB scan. Previous blog with our views.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, over at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they're urging a no vote on the conference report and threatening to score it on their pro-business report card. Unbelievable. In Washington, you don't have to make this stuff up. It writes itself.

Over the weekend, conferees on the CPSC Reform Act completed action on an historic bi-partisan rewrite of product safety laws (details on final agreement from Senator Pryor). The bill is a huge victory for America's littlest consumers, despite Exxon-Mobil's and the toy manufacturers' unsuccessful final efforts to gut it, although they did delay it unnecessarily. All that remains is final approval, which is virtually a slam-dunk in the House, but subject to a break in ongoing, unfortunate and unrelated Senate partisan bickering you can read about in any newspaper. We are hoping Senators will put aside their differences for this bill, at least. Among the highlights of the agreement:

Last-minute adds:
-- The bill make industry's voluntary toy standard mandatory, which means that magnets and many other hazards will be subject to the new law's centerpiece third party testing requirement;
-- That new third party testing requirement does not include an additional new layer of preemption that the toy industry had demanded for months, which would have stifled state attorney general enforcement of a new untested product safety reform;
-- The new law reduces six toxic phthalates in children's products to virtually trace levels. Three are banned permanently. The other three would then be subject to a CPSC scientific review, but are banned until that review is completed. This is the first time we've gotten that. If the ban is removed, states would regain authority to ban them.
-- The new law grants private-sector employees whistleblower protections, which means more hazards will be reported to the CPSC. Would we have liked the whistleblower protection to extend to government employees? Of course, but the provision would have raised committee jurisdictional disputes, so we'll get it next year.
-- Final action preserves California's historic Prop. 65 toxic warning label law and similar laws in place as of 2003.
-- At its previous meeting two weeks ago, the committee approved another landmark reform, requiring establishment of a public CPSC database of potential hazards.

Other reforms in the bill previously reported include its massive increase in CPSC resources and funding, its increase in civil penalty and recall authorities, its requirement that choking hazards be disclosed on the Internet, and more. We'll have a detailed release shortly.

The remedial legislation would have never had a chance -- after all, we've been trying to upgrade product safety laws for twenty-five years with little success -- except that last summer we had a wave of recalls of iconic toys, from Barbie to Thomas the Tank Engine. After 30 million toys, all from China, and 15 million other children's products were recalled last year, Congress began to move. We're glad it kept moving. All the conferees deserve great credit for enacting this historic legislation (our coalition letter today thanking Senate conferees, identical one went to House). Let's hope we can get it to the President before August recess. Our previous blog has links to a coalition report explaining many of the final changes.

The CPSC Reform Act conference meets today (announcement). Our position is simple. Protect kids. Here's one way to look at it, through the eyes of kids. The committee has completed 21 non-controversial items, but at least four PIRG priorities remain. Here's our statement today on those issues:

In today’s conference meeting, U.S. PIRG urges the conferees to accept measures to:

We call on the conferees to reject special-interest demands to remove or weaken key provisions of the bill, so that the final legislation sent to the president truly protects America’s children.

We continue to tussle on Capitol Hill against roadblocks and demands for special interest provisions thrown in the way of strong CPSC reform, which has stalled on the ten yard line due to consideration of the toy industry's intentional delaying efforts. Meanwhile, the CPSC reports that recalls in fiscal 2008 are up. And I thought that the toy industry's message was "not to worry, we had a blip last year, now all is fine." Nancy Cowles of Kids In Danger took the CPSC report and graphed it-- she used third quarter data since 2008 data are incomplete. Industry lobbyists continue to ask for (1) fewer protections against dangerous magnets and other toy hazards, (2) less public disclosure of potential hazards, (3) more preemption of stronger state laws, and (4) fewer protections against toxic chemicals -- such as lead and phthalates -- in kids' products. Regardless, Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) are pushing hard to send the bill to the President before the August break.

In response to eleventh hour efforts by a phalanx of special interest lobbyists demanding that Congress completely eliminate any state authority over product safety as an additional condition of their so-called support for the CPSC Reform Act, we've joined other advocates in a detailed letter urging rejection of the proposal for additional preemption. Previous blog has details on the state of play of the conference.

Our colleagues at the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) have a new report -- Volatile Vinyl -- the new Shower Curtain's Chemical Smell. That link goes to a site with a variety of materials in addition to the report and news release. Excerpt from the release:

Results from a two-phase study released today by the Center for Health, Environment & Justice, a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing environmental health harms caused by chemical threats, show that shower curtains made with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic contain many harmful chemicals including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), phthalates and organotins; these PVC shower curtains are potentially toxic to the health of consumers. Vinyl shower curtains and shower curtain liners release chemicals into the home that are most easily identified by that "new shower curtain smell" and are routinely sold at major retail outlets.

Consumers should avoid purchasing shower curtains made with PVC, and should not buy shower curtains that are not labeled with their content. "The new shower curtain smell may be toxic to your health," said Michael Schade, report co-author and CHEJ PVC Campaign Coordinator. "The good news is that families can take simple steps to protect their health by avoiding shower curtains made with PVC and choosing healthier products."

The conference committee on CPSC reform is continuing its negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate-passed versions of product safety reform legislation. Along with other consumer groups, we continue to urge the conferees to take the strongest parts of each bill (Florida PIRG Sun-Sentinel op-edit).

Meanwhile over at the National Association of Manufacturers, they continue to say they are for reform, yet continue to push for gutting amendments to key parts of the proposals (NAM letter to conferees).

What does NAM want? Same as ever. Less authority to state attorneys general to protect the public, continued behind-closed-doors secret agreements between CPSC and manufacturers, lots more preemption of stronger state laws, fewer rights for whistleblowers, no Internet disclosure of hazard warnings and, of course, no ban on toxic phthalates. These pernicious proposals undermine the public's safety and should all be rejected.

If negotiations continue smoothly, the conference report could be sent to the President by July Fourth.

We've been longtime supporters (our comments to European Commission, 2006)of the European precautionary approach to toxic hazards. In the Washington Post story Chemical Law Has Global Impact: E.U.'s New Rules Forcing Changes By U.S. Firms, reporter Lyndsey Layton explains the implementation of Europe's new REACH statute on chemical safety:

Adamantly opposed by the U.S. chemical industry and the Bush administration, the E.U. laws will be phased in over the next decade. It is difficult to know exactly how the changes will affect products sold in the United States. But American manufacturers are already searching for safer alternatives to chemicals used to make thousands of consumer goods, from bike helmets to shower curtains. (emphasis added)

The EPA has banned only five chemicals since 1976. The hurdles are so high for the agency that it has been unable to ban asbestos, which is widely acknowledged as a likely carcinogen and is barred in more than 30 countries. Instead, the EPA relies on industry to voluntarily cease production of suspect chemicals.

The European Union's tough stance on chemical regulation is the latest area in which the Europeans are reshaping business practices with demands that American companies either comply or lose access to a market of 27 countries and nearly 500 million people. From its crackdown on antitrust practices in the computer industry to its rigorous protection of consumer privacy, the European Union has adopted a regulatory philosophy that emphasizes the consumer. Its approach to managing chemical risks, which started with a trickle of individual bans and has swelled into a wave, is part of a European focus on caution when it comes to health and the environment.

Maryland PIRG has a new report: Toxic Baby Furniture: The Latest Case for Making Products Safe from the Start. From the Baltimore Sun story High levels of formaldehyde found in baby furniture by Dennis O'Brien:

The testing was conducted by Berkeley Analytical Associates, an environmental testing firm in Richmond, Calif. "If anything, their calculations are on the conservative side," said Thad Godish, an environmental management professor at Ball State University who was not involved in the report. Newborns and toddlers are more sensitive than adults to formaldehyde in cabinetry and other wood-finished furniture, he said, but cribs may be where babies are the most exposed.

Also today, the New York Times features Answers About Mass Transit from Gene Russianoff, longtime senior attorney for both NYPIRG and its highly-successful subway riders advocacy group, the Straphangers Campaign. From Gene:

You’ve pointed out one of the key challenges and tensions facing the transit system: Can New York afford to expand and still do the necessary repairs to the existing system? The Straphangers Campaign has always cast its lot with the latter, a subway that has 468 subway stations, 6,200 subway cars, 4,500 buses, hundreds of miles of track and tunnel lighting. That's the priority. Having said that, there are strong arguments for moving ahead on a handful of "mega" projects like the Second Avenue Subway, which would move hundreds of thousands of people the day it opens, as well as "decongest" several other lines. It would be great if our elected officials came up with the funding to do both. We will find out in the coming months.

A new report, Still Not Safe, from Consumers Union, publishers of Consumer Reports, finds that product recalls are on track to break the record set last year. Here is the news release:

According to the analysis, CPSC has initiated 121 recalls of unsafe products for the first four months of 2008, a total of nearly ten million products. At the current rate, the CPSC will issue more than 800 recalls in their 2008 fiscal year, a 70 percent increase over last year.

Here's a very nice Medill News video of the stroller event. Here's a story by Sharise Darby of Scripps. More details at this previous blog.

Update 2: Here's a very nice Medill News video of the stroller event. It features an interview with Linda Ginzel. She and her husband Boaz Keysar founded Kids In Danger after their 16 month son Danny Keysar was killed -- ten years ago this week -- when a dangerous and previously-recalled portable crib collapsed around him. Both the House and Senate bills include a section known as The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act -- on improving recall notifications and crib and durable product safety.

Update: Link to U.S. PIRG testimony yesterday.
Join us Thursday at 10am for a Stroller Rally urging final passage of the strongest possible CPSC reform bill, currently in a House/Senate conference negotiation.

10 am. Upper Senate Park on Constitution Ave between New Jersey and Delaware Avenues, Washington, D.C. Bring the kids (downloadable flyer).

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest toy seller, has ordered its suppliers to meet a new set of children's-product safety requirements by this fall that goes far beyond existing government regulations.
The standards include strict limits for lead and a broad array of other heavy metals and chemicals that have been linked to various medical and developmental problems in children.

Over at the Washington Post, Annys Shin reports in Speeding Up Safety on a new and welcome trend: Instead of waiting for EPA or CPSC or FDA action, big companies are using their own version of the "precautionary principle" when potential toxic threats to public health are raised about chemicals in their products. From the story:

"When clouds begin to form over something, as they have increasingly over phthalates or bisphenol A, we don't wait for a final judgment," Toys R Us chief executive Gerald L. Storch said. "Our principle at Toys R Us is that it is always okay to be more conservative than required."

Apparently House Republican Leader John Boehner has used procedural tactics to block appointment of conferees until at least next week -- more news as we get it.

Last night the Senate named conferees to resolve differences between Senate and House-passed CPSC reform bills. Our goal is to pass the strongest bill possible, by taking the best parts of each bill. Senate Democratic conferees are Commerce Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), joined by ranking Republican Ted Stevens (R-AK), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and John Sununu (R-NH). The House is expected to name its conferees later today. House conferees are expected to be Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) and Democratic members Bobby Rush (D-IL), Diane DeGette (D-CO), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) and from the Republican side, ranking member Joe Barton (R-TX), Ed Whitfield (R-KY) and Cliff Stearns (R-FL).

Recently, we reported that U.S. regulatory committees are looking harder at a toxic chemical -- bis-phenol A -- long used in baby bottles and other hard plastic bottles. Since then, Nalgene (makers of sports bottles) has joined Wal-Mart and Toys-R-Us in announcing it would phase out or eliminate the chemical (AP story via Salt Lake Tribune). Canada and several states are also considering PIRG-backed bans.

Now comes a front page Washington Post story by Lyndsey Layton Studies on Chemical In Plastics Questioned:

Despite more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university laboratories that have raised health concerns about a chemical compound that is central to the multibillion-dollar plastics industry, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed it safe largely because of two studies, both funded by an industry trade group.

As part of his investigation, Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wants to examine the role played by the Weinberg Group, a Washington firm that employs scientists, lawyers and public relations specialists to defend products from legal and regulatory action. The firm has worked on Agent Orange, tobacco and Teflon, among other products linked to health hazards, and congressional investigators say it was hired by Sunoco, a BPA manufacturer.

The chemical manufacturers and toy makers continue to lobby Congress to weaken the House and Senate passed CPSC reform bills (previous blog). If you like to find out more about our campaign to stop toxic toys and strengthen the CPSC, go here to our product safety page. You can really help by getting involved. Here's an easy way to email letters-to-the-editor to your local papers supporting strong toxic toy and CPSC reform here at our campaign action page.

When the risk of harm from a chemical or an activity is not fully known, we subscribe to the precautionary principle-- ban it or limit exposure anyway "even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." The chemical industry does not agree. It has apparently hired an astroturf front group with "consumer" in its name to walk around Congress wearing "save the rubber duckies" buttons in opposition to our efforts in the CPSC Reform Act to ban toxic phthalates in children's products. (You can't make this stuff up.) And by the way, we can provide the group with phthalate-free rubber duckies.

Meanwhile, the government of Canada and a U.S. advisory committee are acting more sensibly on another chemical, bisphenol-a, that also poses threats.

It is encouraging to see that Canada (New York Times) may follow the lead of San Francisco, which has enacted PIRG-backed legislation limiting exposure to the chemical bisphenol-a, a common ingredient in plastic baby bottles and other bottles known to be a hormone disrupter in animals. A new draft report from the U.S. National Toxicology Program also finds that the effects of BPA found in animals could "possibly" extend to humans:

Recognizing the lack of data on the effects of bisphenol A in humans and despite the limitations in the evidence for "low" dose effects in laboratory animals discussed in more detail below, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed.

UPDATE: In May 2007, under threat of an industry lawsuit, San Francisco repealed its bisphenol-a ban.

While you've been worrying about the declining value of your home, whether your credit card company is going to "risk-reprice" your interest rate or about the war, or just about anything important, industry scientists have been worrying, and working day and night to "solve" the significant world problem of smelly socks. In the process, they've been meddling with infinitesimal, or "nano-sized" particles of silver whose properties they may not understand, and possibly creating bigger environmental problems. And, it isn't just socks. Industry scientists are also using nano products in your food, your detergents, your cosmetics and your sunscreen. In 2006, a coalition of environmental groups petitioned FDA

to protect consumers from products laced with nanoparticles. Consumer products that currently contain unregulated nanoparticles, including sunscreens and cosmetics used by children and adults could pose new dangers to human health and the environment.

This blog at io9 has more details about a study where nano-silver leached from silver-coated socks into washing machines and, so, could already be leaching into the environment, where it could be highly toxic to fish, as larger-particle ionic silver is known to be.

Of course, one big problem with nanotechnology is that its use is being promoted heavily even though scientists don't really know much about the properties of nano-particles, which are often different than those of larger particles of the same substance. Also, nanotech is barely regulated.

Here is a recent EPA Powerpoint presentation on nano-- a few excerpts:

The Washington Post story Chemical Industry's Influence at EPA Probed by Lyndsey Layton reports in detail today on a House Energy and Commerce Committee investigation into whether the "chemical industry has stacked EPA panels" responsible for determining safe levels of toxic chemicals.

According to the story, the committee is investigating whether EPA and the main chemical manufacturer trade group (now known by the benign-sounding name, the American Chemistry Council) worked together to keep scientists with industry conflicts-of-interest on key science advisory panels, but threw off an independent state-paid scientist whose views did not comport with the industry's. Here is the April 2nd Dingell-gram, or information demand, from committee chairman John Dingell (D-MI) and Investigations subcommittee chairman Bart Stupak (D-MI) to the chemistry club. Here is an excerpt from the Post story.

The lawmakers want to know why the EPA allowed the scientists in question to remain on expert panels but removed a public health scientist, Deborah C. Rice, from a panel at the chemistry council's request. Rice chaired an EPA panel last year that reviewed safe levels for deca-BDE, a polybrominated diphenyl ether used as a fire retardant in television casings and other electronics. Deca has been found to cause cancer in mice and is a suspected human carcinogen.

In other toxic chemical news, Vicki Ekstrom over at Stateline.org has a nice story States lead feds in toy safety summarizing all the work being done by the states to protect us from toxic hazards. This week, Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire signed PIRG-backed toxic toy legislation.

Earlier this evening the Senate passed on a 79-13 vote (consumer vote is yea) a comprehensive version of S. 2663, the CPSC Reform Act. Here is a link to the consumer coalition news release commending the bi-partisan bill.

While a managers' amendment resolving differences and accepting some amendments without votes did tinker around the edges of the state Attorney General enforcement, lead and whistleblower protection provisions, the final bill includes all the core provisions we had going onto the floor. And, the final bill adds several provisions:

Once the Senate soundly defeated the DeMint (R-SC) amendment to simply substitute the narrower House bill, the air went out of the National Association of Manufacturers' attempts to weaken this important reauthorization of the CPSC. They'll patch and pump that balloon back up for the conference committee negotiations, but we'll be there, too. Here's an excerpt from our release followed by one from the Senate bi-partisan sponsors.

Excerpt from consumer news release commending the bi-partisan bill:

The Consumer Product Safety Reform Act, S. 2663 as passed, will do the following: increase CPSC's budget over the next seven years to $155 million; create a consumer database of product hazard information to better help consumers make informed purchasing decisions; make the industry's voluntary toy safety standards mandatory, ensuring that all toys are tested to comprehensive criteria; establish third-party, pre-market testing of children's products; increase the current limit on CPSC's civil penalties to $10 million for most violations, and cap it at $20 million for "aggravating circumstances;" give State Attorneys General tools to better protect their residents; lower lead levels in children's products; and protect CPSC staff and private-sector employees who blow the whistle on wrongdoing.

The groups acknowledge the importance of marrying the strong reforms of the Senate bill with key provisions in the House product safety bill passed in December. In particular, the groups point to the Senate's provisions addressing the public database, State AG enforcement and whistleblower protections. The groups will urge conferees to keep these provisions, while also adopting a critical House measure that ensures product testing of more children's products by defining such products as those designed for children under 12 years of age. The Senate bill covers products designed for children under seven years of age.

"The CPSC is crippled under budget restraints, mounting imports and thousands of new products entering the marketplace. As a result, we've seen endless recalls and unnecessary deaths and injuries," Pryor said. "My legislation allows parents and the CPSC to fight back against the tide of dangerous toys and products. It provides new safety safeguards that emphasize resources, accountability, disclosure and testing -- from the factory floor to the store shelves. I appreciate the broad, bipartisan support behind this bill and will work toward swift conference action in order to produce a solid, aggressive bill for President Bush to sign."

"I thank Senator Pryor and Senator Stevens for their leadership in negotiating this bipartisan compromise bill. S. 2663 authorizes the appropriate level of resources and provides the new authorities necessary for the agency to do the job it was created to do: protect consumers," Inouye said. "Children are dying and suffering grievous injuries because of unsafe products. This legislation directly addresses the weaknesses of our nation’s product safety system and is a good step forward in our effort to keep harmful products off of store shelves."

"This important legislation will provide the Consumer Product Safety Commission with the tools needed to better protect American consumers," said Stevens. "The measure sends a strong message that when it comes to our children, safety comes first. I am especially pleased that the bill includes my provision to protect users of all-terrain vehicles by requiring both domestic and foreign ATV companies to comply with the same basic safety standards and sales practices."

"Toy safety has made a giant leap forward with the Senate's approval of this bipartisan bill to strengthen the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission. This bill will help the federal government better detect and prevent threats to our children before, not after, toys reach store shelves," said Collins.

Update 2:30pm: Senator Pryor is negotiating a managers' package that accepts versions of a number of amendments. It is unclear which more controversial amendments will still have yes/no votes, but there is a chance that the bill will pass sometime this afternoon, before tonight. So far, the managers' package amendments look good.
UpdateVitter amendment tabled (Pro-consumer YEA to table). As soon as the vote is posted, I will add a link.

The Senate is now considering (Cspan2) another pernicious amendment. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is proposing to change over two centuries of American jurisprudence and instead require that if a state attorney general were to lose an action to enforce the CPSC Act, state taxpayers would have to pay the legal costs of the prevailing party. Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR), chief sponsor of the CPSC Reform Act, is arguing strongly against this amendment that would substitute the English legal system's "loser pays" rule. Senator Pryor is arguing, among other things, that a judge already has broad authority under Rule 11 to sanction "frivolous lawsuits" and that is an adequate deterrent. Here is our opposition letter, which argues that adding a "loser pays" rule not only hurts taxpayers, it has a chilling effect on product safety efforts:

A "loser-pays" rule will harm American consumers by making attorneys general far more hesitant to bring enforcement actions to protect the public from product hazards. In the worst cases, it will harm Americans doubly -- the second time as taxpayers -- by forcing the government to pay litigation expenses for private businesses. We urge you to vote against this amendment.

Today, the U.S. Senate took another big step toward enacting comprehensive CPSC reform. On a 51-45 vote, the Senate rejected (tabled, pro-consumer vote is YEA) the Cornyn (R-TX) amendment to limit the authority of state attorneys general to enforce the federal law. Here is our letter in opposition. Also today, Senator Kyl (R-AZ) came on the floor to apparently announce the withdrawal of Senator DeMint's (R-SC) amendment to weaken the product safety whistleblower provisions in the bill.

I've discussed the big differences between the narrow House and comprehensive Senate CPSC reform proposals in previous blogs. Three of the differences that the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) crowd seem to complain about most are Attorney General enforcement, whistleblower protection and the new product safety database. We'll see if they have further attorney general or whistleblower amendments tomorrow-- it looks as if Senator Vitter may have another anti-attorney general amendment to offer.

Today's USA Today has a point/counterpoint on the database. The USA Today Editorial board says: Our view on product safety: Put complaints online. And NAM says: Opposing view: Don't confuse consumers.

I read the public database provision of the bill, S. 2663, the CPSC Reform Act, as a carefully-crafted bi-partisan compromise that protects corporate secrets and corporate good names and also requires prompt removal of incorrect information. I read the NAM opposing view and I think they're basing their opinion on some other proposal. They've had a cozy secret relationship with the CPSC for many years and they like it. But if we had such a database of of information about complaints, maybe more would have been done about the Simplicity crib recall debacle featured in the USA Today board's viewpoint. And, yesterday, Shelby Esses, mother of 20-month- old Jack Esses, who went into a date-rape drug-induced coma for 5 hours after swallowing the toy called Aqua-Dots, spoke at a news conference with Senator Pryor, chief sponsor of S. 2663, at the U.S. Capitol about how she could find nothing on the CPSC website about the problem and any previous complaints.

As she said at a previous news event:

"If there had been a database we could have turned to that (and) had information about the product, it would have made treating it a lot easier and really put our minds at ease," she said.

Although there remain a lot of positive and negative amendments in the hopper, yet unconsidered, it appears that we're close to the finish line. Staff will work all night on negotiable amendments, and there will be some votes tomorrow on amendments where there was no consensus. Probably, there will be some amendment on weakening the public right-to-know database. It is likely that final passage will occur tomorrow (Thursday) night. But just to be sure, the Majority Leader, Harry Reid, filed a petition today to hold a cloture motion to limit debate on Friday morning.

Tonight, the U.S. Senate soundly defeated on a 57-39 vote the DeMint (R-SC) amendment to substitute the House CPSC bill for the more comprehensive Senate bill. Yes, to table the amendment, is the consumer vote. Senators who voted No deserve phone calls from their constituents: You might ask:

The number is 202-224-3121.

More information on CPSC reform on the Senate floor is in my last two blogs here and here. There is no question that the National Association of Manufacturers will continue its misguided efforts to weaken this important effort to improve the CPSC's ability to protect us, but the Senators fighting for the best final law possible won a key vote tonight.

On Wednesday, expect consideration of a number of good and bad amendments. This bill may go to final Senate passage either Wednesday night or more likely sometime Thursday.

Here's our group letter opposing the DeMint (R-SC) amendment to substitute the narrower House bill for the comprehensive CPSC Reform Act, S 2663. In addition to the arguments I made in the previous blog entry, here's one more: If the Demint amendment passes tonight, dangerous small magnets that have killed one little boy and sent over two dozen for emergency intestinal surgery will not be regulated by the CPSC.

Other comments on floor debate: We just heard a very nice speech by Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), who, like Mark Pryor (D-AR), is a former state attorney general. Senator Salazar spoke about the critical need to keep the state AGs on the product safety beat. Just before him, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a PIRG/Environment California-backed amendment to limit toxic phthalates in children's products. The amendment is based on her bill, S. 2275, which is itself based on a pioneering CALPIRG/Environment California-backed state law. Environment California? New home of CALPIRG's environmental work.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filed a cloture petition preparatory to bringing the CPSC Reform Act (now numbered S. 2663) to the Senate floor next week. A procedural vote known as a cloture vote or motion to proceed (60 yeas required) is scheduled for 5:30 pm Monday.

Meanwhile, we've joined other leading consumer groups in a release rebutting a 10-point memo (more of a screed actually) attacking the bill that was issued by the office of Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee. Since his committee held a number of hearings, we'd expect a better understanding of the bill's intent and scope. Conversely, the ranking Republican and co-chair of the Committee, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is a co-sponsor of the bill.

We're supporting all strengthening amendments, and of course opposing efforts to gut or delay this important product safety reform bill. From our release today:

Consumer, Safety Groups Call Foul on False Attacks on Product Safety Reform Bill-- Groups rebut charges; bill will be considered in the Senate beginning on Monday

(Washington, DC) -- Consumer, public interest, safety, and scientific groups today condemned false charges from the office of Sen. Jim DeMint, released through the Republican Steering Committee, against a Senate bill that would overhaul the ailing Consumer Product Safety Commission, and urged Senators to approve the measure -- without weakening amendments -- when it is slated to come up for a vote next week.

Leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee have announced a compromise on major CPSC reform legislation approved in committee last fall. The committee's lead Republican, co-chairman and Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), has signed off on a modified version of S. 2045, the CPSC Reform Act sponsored by Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR), Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and others. There is no word yet on whether the deal guarantees that all Senators will consent to bringing the bill to the floor without pernicious delays common to the Senate under its rules, but this is a major step. Our hope is to enact final legislation that melds the best parts of the House-passed bill, HR 4040, with the Senate bill, and even improves them where they are lacking.

Also this week, I am speaking both today and Thursday at the International Consumer Product Health and Safety Organization annual conference. Other speakers include Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), lead sponsor of HR 4040, CPSC acting chair Nancy Nord and key hill staff. The event committee is chaired by Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America.

Finally, our colleagues at Kids In Danger have released an important report called 2007: The Year of the Recall. Check it out:

There were 231 recalls accounting for more than 46 million items, including twelve recalls that involved one million or more units. "These products together caused at least 657 injuries and 6 deaths," stated Nancy Cowles, executive director of Kids In Danger. " And those incidents include only those already reported at the time of the recall. More needs to be done to protect children from these hazards."

In an editorial today the New York Times calls for The Next Step to Safety, final passage of federal legislation reauthorizing and reinvigorating the CPSC: "Strengthening the safety laws should give consumers confidence that what is on sale is safe enough to use." Action may occur in the Senate this month.

The editorial refers to a variety of situations that have led to the concern over the CPSC, including crib safety debacles. Here's yesterday's Channel 6 Philadelphia story Parents frustrated over recall delays on one of the CPSC's delayed crib recalls. The watch-able video and the print story both feature NJPIRG's Rebeckah Scotland.

Louise Story reports in the New York Times that in a letter Tuesday to Mattel chief Bob Eckert, a total of 56 federal Lawmakers Say Mattel Broke Word on Lead:

The letter was prompted by Mattel's decision not to issue a nationwide recall of a blood-pressure cuff in a toy medical kit sold under the Fisher-Price brand. The legislators said they were disturbed by the company's "lack of action." Lead was found in a plastic part of the toy, and current federal laws ban lead only in paint on toys. Lawmakers are considering a law to limit lead in all material in toys.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Senate, negotiations continue on bringing its CPSC reform proposal to the floor. The House acted in December. If the Senate doesn't finish the job, we'll all have to move to Illinois.

The Wall Street Journal story False 'Green' Ads Draw Global Scrutiny (pd. subs. may be req'd) by Tom Wright notes that government agencies and even notoriously cautious industry self-regulatory bodies are stepping up efforts against greenwashing-- the practice of falsely claiming in ads that your polluting product is good for the Earth:

In Norway, government regulators in September banned all car ads from stating that their vehicles are "green," "clean" or "environmentally friendly" on the grounds that all car production leads to more, not fewer, carbon emissions. The Belgian industry-run, advertising-standard authority in October ruled that Swedish auto maker Saab Automobile, a unit of General Motors Corp., must pull a print campaign in which it claimed that its "Biopower" range of cars make the roads "finally turn green."

Carbon offsets fund projects designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in one place in order to counterbalance or "offset" emissions that occur elsewhere.

Over at the Washington Post, reporter Annys Shin has two product safety stories in Saturday's paper. In one, White House Vetting Product-Safety Candidates, she explains that the White House is still considering putting up a nominee for the vacant chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Among the leading candidates is apparently Gail Charnley. The Post lede explains the problems with the candidate:

The White House is considering a scientist who has frequently testified and written on behalf of the energy, pesticide and tobacco industries to chair the nation's chief product-safety regulator.

In her other story, Fighting for Safety, Shin describes the possibility of completing a long-running furniture flammability rulemaking at CPSC.

The story explains in detail the efforts of tobacco lobbyist Peter Sparber to deflect attention from the leading cause of furniture fires that lead to thousands of deaths and millions of dollars in property damage -- careless smokers. Since the industry did not want to make "fire-safe" cigarettes (some advocates prefer the term "self-extinguishing") that go out when unattended, the tobacco industry instead through various paid and unpaid surrogates urged CPSC to force furniture makers to make non-flammable fabrics. How? Using toxic chemicals such as those in the PBDE family, of course. Unfortunately, these toxic chemicals result in myriad problems. First, they off-gas into home environments, subjecting consumers to longterm hazards that lead to developmental and other chronic problems. Second, when they do finally catch fire, and they will, they give off these toxic chemicals in acute, high-doses posing greater risk to firefighters and first responders. Toxicologist (and mountain climber) Arlene Blum has helped lead efforts to ban toxic chemicals.

Fortunately, a coalition of firefighters and consumer groups, including the PIRGs, has solved a large part of the problem by enacting a series of fire-safe cigarette laws based on New York's pioneering effort. The PIRGs and affiliated organizations including Environment California have also been at the center of state efforts to ban toxic chemicals such as the flame retardant PBDEs. Unfortunately, some states have previously enacted flammability rules that have led to overuse of toxic chemicals by the furniture industry. States are now modifying these rules as they pass newer laws eliminating toxics, as this blog from University of California-Riverside scientists explains. And, of course, lobbyists from the American Chemistry Council (formerly known as the Chemical Manufacturers of America) and its members have been jetting around state capitols, sometimes misrepresenting their affiliation in opposition to the proposed limits.

We can only hope that any new CPSC regulation does not mandate use of toxic chemicals to stop fires, and in the process, preempt the efforts of states to ban the chemicals.

Two stories from the Chicago Tribune today: The Chicago Tribune, in a story by Maudlyne Ihejirika -- $30 mil. deal in lead-paint Thomas suit -- is reporting today that RC2, makers of the popular Thomas the Tank Engine toys that were the subject of major summer recalls, has settled a class-action over lead-laden toys.

The paper is also reporting, in a separate story by Sam Roe -- Ty takes high-lead doll out of stores -- that Ty, makers of popular Ty Baby dolls and Jammin' Jenna, has reluctantly agreed to comply with Illinois lead laws. Jenna's vinyl shoes violate Illinois law. The company had for some time claimed that Illinois was preempted, but as the story notes:

In previous interviews, Ty representatives have said the company is not violating state law because federal rules supersede it. While the state bans vinyl toys that exceed 600 parts per million of lead, federal law does not. But both the state attorney general's office and the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission have said that the Illinois ban is valid because states can adopt their own rules where no federal law exists. Ty's action Tuesday appears to have averted a possible court fight and what would have been the first test of Illinois' strict lead laws.

The embattled acting chair of the CPSC, Nancy Nord, is speaking today at the National Press Club. According to the C-Span website, they'll cover it live on C-Span2 at 1pm. From the Press Club blurb:

Nord,who has come under fire from democrats and consumer groups for her stewardship of the US Consumer Product Safety Commission will talk about CPSC funding shortfalls, Chinese imports and other issues. Ms. Nord will detail her vision for the future of the agency.

Ann Brown, CPSC chair under Bill Clinton, has joined Florida PIRG's Brad Ashwell in a column Congress must address the trouble in toyland running in Florida newspapers:

And we must allow state legislatures and state attorneys general to help police the product safety marketplace. We need 51 consumer cops on the beat, not just one. Congress must listen to the American families who have stopped buying toys because they've lost confidence in their safety. The best gift Congress can give America's littlest consumers this year is to better protect them from dangerous toys.

In her story Everyday Items, Complex Chemistry in today's New York Times, reporter Amy Schoenfeld points out that some U.S. firms, including Dell, are emulating Europe's and California's precautionary principle approach to chemical hazards in their products, no matter where they are sold. A flack for the American Chemistry Council, formerly the Chemical Manufacturers of America (but that name sounded bad, even though it was accurate), predictably whines in the story, but scientists she interviews have a more reasoned approach:

"We have enormous gaps in our understanding of how these chemicals affect health and the environment." said Michael P. Wilson, a public health scientist at the University of California, Berkeley. "And where we do have information, we see cause for concern."

[...]director of the chemicals program at the Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. "For some chemicals we may never be certain that they cause harm."

Today the House passed its version of CPSC reform on a 407-0 vote. Excerpt from our joint statement with other leading consumer groups:

We appreciate the hard work that has gone into crafting H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, and thank the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Leadership for their prompt action today. Our current product safety system is in dire need of comprehensive reform, and this bill represents the first concrete effort to help protect consumers while addressing industry concerns.[...]We also commend both houses for the anticipated final passage later today of provisions in the Omnibus package providing CPSC with an $80 million budget for FY08 -- $17 million more than the Commission received last year, and $16.75 million than the Administration's request.

The Senate will not act on its CPSC bill, S 2045, this year. Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR), our lead Senate sponsor, has pledged early action in 2008. Nevertheless, the increase in CPSC appropriations to $80 million is a major holiday present for America's littlest consumers. That will become law as soon as the president signs the omnibus package.

The House bill reauthorizes the CPSC for three years, increases its civil penalty authority to $10 million, lowers allowable lead levels in children's products significantly and requires testing of all children's products subject to mandatory rules.

Our support for the House bill was tempered by the fact that the Senate Commerce Committee-passed bill was significantly stronger although we expect it to be modified and weakened in floor negotiations. Nevertheless, the House did get to the goal line first. Measures that are stronger in the Senate bill include the following: higher civil penalties for wrongdoers, better limits on secrecy of CPSC information, stronger language on preemption and attorney general enforcement and higher funding authorization for CPSC.

Key provisions that only appear in the Senate bill include a provision extending new testing requirements to all toys, including those under voluntary standards (such as small magnets and strangulation hazards) and a new provision protecting whistleblowers.

The House bill includes a provision requiring third party testing of infant and durable products (such as cribs); the Senate bill does not.

With the holidays fast approaching, the House Energy and Commerce Committee finalized its CPSC improvement/product safety/lead limits/China toys reform bill, HR 4040, late today. We view the bill as a positive step but hope to strengthen the bill in negotiations with the Senate, which has a stronger bill, S 2045 (although that bill passed by the Senate Commerce Committee has been somewhat weakened in pre-floor action negotiations). There is still a slight, very slight chance, that Congress can give America's littlest consumers safe toys for the holidays. But it will need to move quickly and may need to do so by tomorrow, which may be adjournment day.

Tonight, we'll be appearing live on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, probably sometime in the first half of the show, which airs 7-8PM in the eastern time zone. We'll be talking about the latest on lead toys, along with representatives of Public Citizen and Consumers Union.

Due to consideration of the energy bill on the floor, the House Energy and Commerce Committee did not act on HR 4040, its proposal to reform the CPSC today. Earliest date of action is Tuesday. While we are grateful that the committee is trying to move a bill that includes some good parts, the current version fails to include many critical provisions. Today's Washington Post summarizes some of our concerns about what's missing or not good enough in the newest version of the bill, the full committee manager's substitute. The bill, incredibly, would not regulate dangerous small magnets, fails to adequately improve the public's right to know about hazards, fails to increase allowable civil penalties enough, fails to grant state attorneys general enough authority to protect their residents and aid the CPSC, fails to preserve the right of the states to enact stronger state laws and fails to grant protection to whistleblowers.

Also this week, 35 state attorneys general sent a strong letter to the hill urging that the final bill have lower lead limits and stronger state attorney general enforcement provisions. And, 75 local and national public health groups, including U.S. PIRG and Environment America, sent a similarly strong letter on the need to tighten the lead section. We will continue to work with the committee.

While a notice hasn't yet been posted to the Energy and Commerce website, staff have been noticed that the CPSC bill, HR 4040, will be considered in committee tomorrow Thursday. We and other advocates remain concerned that the versions of the bill we have seen fail to adequately protect the public health as much as S. 2045, its Senate counterpart, does. We are working to improve its deficiencies, including the following:

In other news, a coalition of environmental health groups has launched a new website -- www.healthytoys.org -- with a searchable database of lead-laden, and other toxics-laden toys. As the Washington Post's Annys Shin reports in Toy-Safety Data Released On Web Site:

Parents worried about toy safety after a record year of recalls can now look through a list of more than 1,200 items that a coalition of public interest groups has tested for lead and other harmful chemicals, though toy industry officials say the list may cause unnecessary alarm. The coalition, led by the Ecology Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., found more than 200 items that contained unsafe levels of lead, as well as hundreds of others that had little or no lead. The results are scheduled to be released today in an online database at http://www.healthytoys.org.

As we say on U.S. PIRG's Right to know pages in the caption under this photo:

Without the Toxic Release Inventory Regulations, industrial facilities in or near our communities like this refinery could put toxic waste into our environment and even drinking water without informing the public.

Twelve states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, sued the Environmental Protection Agency yesterday for weakening regulations that for two decades have required businesses and industries to report the toxic chemicals they use, store and release.

Community groups across the country have used the program to track the amounts of hazardous chemicals in local neighborhoods. Under the program, companies must provide information about the types of toxic chemicals stored at plants and factories in each state, as well as the quantities discharged from each plant.

With help from Ericka Lewis of CBS4-TV (read story or watch video clip) and a lead expert, a Denver, Colorado mom found lead at levels of up to 98% in her kids' jewelry and toys.

Parents are taking a closer look at toys this year since many containing lead have been recalled and have already gone in the trash. Stacy Bush has two children and too many toys to count. So, with the help of lead tester Neil Staples, CBS4 checked to see which toys in her collection might be harmful to her kids. Most tested negative, but a few surprised Bush, including Hello Kitty.

Over the weekend the Baltimore Sun ran a toy safety column Give product safety agency more clout jointly signed by by Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler and Maryland PIRG's David Kosmos. Also, the Vermont Times Argus has Wireless phone monopoly a bad deal by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders as a followup to efforts by him, Vermont PIRG and Vermont's Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce opposing efforts by the mega-monopoly Verizon to gobble up (one Thanksgiving pun is not too many) a wireless competitor.

Today's New York Times story Citizen Vigilance Leads to Toy Recalls by Louise Story points out that it isn't always redoubled testing and altruism by companies that leads to product recalls, it is reports by groups like PIRG, the Center for Environmental Health, and Judy Braiman's Empire State Consumer Association, a "small group of mothers based in Rochester, who regularly buy children's products to test them." And it is individuals, including two citizens highlighted in the piece: wildlife pathologist "Ward Stone and his 10-year-old daughter, Montana."

Then, the story goes on to point out the following:

The commission's recall releases sometimes mention other government agencies that discover hazardous products. But the commission does not generally credit individual people or nonprofit groups when they discover problems.

hazardous levels of lead in dozens of children's necklaces and bracelets sold at stores like Michaels and Big Lots after they tested jewelry that Montana had received at birthday parties.

One problem is the general corporate bias of the CPSC's current leadership. A second is a wrong-headed provision of law known inside the beltway as Section 6(b), which allows manufacturers to control public disclosure of information about their products, even after action is taken. Among the weaker parts of generally laudable Congressional efforts by Congress to improve the CPSC in proposed legislation are modest proposals to modify, but not repeal, 6(b).

Along with Center for Environmental Health, which also issued a report on lead yesterday, PIRG got the message out yesterday that "The best holiday gift Congress can give children, America's littlest consumers, is strong product safety legislation." Here's the Washington Post story by Annys Shin: Groups Expose Hidden Toy Hazards. Hope Yen's AP story is running nationwide: Parents Beware: Are Those Toys Safe?.

As the Daily Herald reports in Joseph Ryan's story Parents' predicament: So which toys are safe?, both Senator Dick Durbin and Representative Bobby Rush, two key CPSC reform players on Capitol Hill, joined Illinois PIRG's Brian Imus at a news conference in Chicago:

"It might just be a good Christmas for books or movies," Durbin said, searching for an answer for toy shoppers. U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, a Chicago Democrat, said he just won't buy anything made in China. That blanket standard removes more than 80 percent of toys from the shelves. Plus, some toys simply don't have "made in" labels. Imus said adults should certainly avoid toys at dollar stores, because they have been the subject of numerous lead-related recalls. He pointed out a small metal jewelry piece the interest group bought at such a store in Chicago. It was 65 percent lead by weight, 1,000 times the federal limit.

PIRGs released the 22nd annual Trouble In Toyland report and annual survey of toy hazards including dangerous small magnets, choking hazards and lead-laden toys at 75 news events today. We had one piece of jewelry that weighed in at 65% lead by weight, or over one thousand times legal limits. That's NYPIRG's Tracy Shelton at her event (AP photo). You can download our full report, our Toy Tips brochure and our news release at toysafety.net. Here's an excerpt from the release:

U.S. PIRG called on Congress to pass the strongest possible product safety reforms under consideration:

-Ban lead except at trace amounts. The PIRG-backed HR 3691, the SAFE Consumer Product Act, sponsored by Rep. DeLauro (Conn.)and 153 co-sponsors, would reduce all lead levels – in paint or in the product -- to 40 parts per million -- the level recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

-Increase the budget and staffing of CPSC. CPSC has only one toy tester and a tiny force of 15 inspectors to check millions of toys at hundreds of ports of entry.

-Require companies to guarantee that their products have been subject to independent third party testing before they put them on toy store shelves.

"It doesn't matter whether a toy is made in China or made in Kansas," said Mierzwinski. "Companies have to make sure that it is safe."

Mierzwinski noted that two other bills, the CSPC Reform Act, S 2045 (Pryor-AR), which is ready for Senate floor action, and the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, HR 4040 (Rush-IL, Stearns-FL, Dingell-MI, Barton-TX), which is awaiting full Energy and Commerce committee action after Thanksgiving, are "good steps that include many of our proposed reforms, but should be improved in several areas."

California attorney general Jerry Brown and LA city attorney Rocky Delgadillo have filed suit against 20 firms for selling lead-laden toys. From NBC 11:

Companies subject to Monday's lawsuit include: Mattel, Fisher-Price, Michael's Stores, Toys-R-Us, Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, KB Toys, Costco Wholesale, A&A Global Industries, RC2 Corporation, Eveready Battery Company, Kids II, Kmart, Marvel Entertainment, Toy Investments. "Despite the lengthening global supply chain, every company that does business in this state must follow the law and protect consumers from lead," Brown said.

Today's Chicago Tribune has an extensive investigative story by Ted Gregory and Sam Roe called Many more toys tainted with lead, inquiry finds:

Many Chicago-area stores are routinely selling lead-tainted toys, including items with levels more than 10 times government safety limits, testing by the Tribune shows. In one of the most comprehensive inquiries into lead in children's products, the Tribune tested about 800 toys and other items sold in shops, department stores, supermarkets, discount outlets and on the Internet.

With all except small non-controversial amendments refused until full committee by the committee's bi-partisan leadership, the House version of CPSC reform, HR 4040, was approved today in subcommittee and is expected to go to full committee two weeks from today. The manager's substitute that was approved should be posted here at the Energy and Commerce committee soon. We are still reading the bill carefully. Positively, many of the changes from HR 4040 as introduced were pro-consumer. Lead limits were improved and clarified. Also, the definition of children's product was changed throughout the bill so products for children up to 12 years old would come under the bill's protections. Previously, the bill had some protections for children up to 12, but most were only for children up to 6 years old. But, remember, we are still reading the bill carefully. Full committee chairman John Dingell re-affirmed at the meeting that Speaker Pelosi wants the bill approved by the House before the December holiday recess.

Nice flash video effort "Spacey the Lead Elf" from the Sierra Club and cartoonist Mark Fiore on fighting lead in toys:

As the holiday shopping season gets under way after 70 product recalls of nearly 10 million items so far in 2007, parents across America still can't be sure that the toys they buy for their children are safe. To help us get the word out about what we need to do to keep our kids safe, award-winning political cartoonist Mark Fiore created "Spacey the Lead Elf."

I first saw on the popular blog Boingboing yesterday that a story in the Melbourne Age reported that Australia had recalled the popular bead craft toy known there as Bindeez because when swallowed, the beads convert into a chemical ingredient used in a date-rape drug. Children in the U.S. and worldwide who have ingested the toys have become very ill or even unconscious:

The toy is produced by Melbourne company Moose and won this year's toy of the year award at the Melbourne Toy and Hobby Fair. Bindeez consists of colourful craft beads that are joined together to create designs. They are sprayed with water to fix them. The company yesterday ordered a nationwide recall of the Chinese-made product, saying a chemical had been substituted without the company's knowledge. The toy contains beads that have been found to contain a chemical that the body metabolises into gamma-hydroxy butyrate (GHB), also known as "grievous bodily harm". It should instead contain a non-toxic glue.

Today's New York Times editorial Chemical Industry 1, Public Safety 0 rightly questions new anti-terrorist chemical plant safety regulations, especially in light of Greenpeace research into the industry's "undue influence" over the rulemaking. Research by longtime Greenpeace toxics advocate Rick Hind is deservedly cited:

It is troubling that these industry-friendly rules were developed in part by Department of Homeland Security employees who previously worked for the chemical industry -- and who may one day work for it again. Rick Hind, the legislative director of the Greenpeace Toxics Campaign, contends that such employees have had an "undue influence." The department says it draws on former chemical industry workers simply because of their "relevant prior experience."

Despite 3 months of work, it is truly hard to say just what -- if anything -- is new, what is innovative and what is worthwhile in the Interagency Working Group on Import Safety's new "Action Plan." I guess what's new is they've got the president messaging on it. U.S. PIRG is particularly disappointed in the squishy, weasel-y language regarding safety certification of imported products. The way we read it, the administration is not supporting the concept that all imported children's products be subject to mandatory testing by a truly independent third party lab that is certified by the government for quality.

Also today, we joined Rachel Weintraub's testimony on behalf of her group, the Consumer Federation of America, and a coalition of organizations, in a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on its CPSC reform bill, HR 4040. At the hearing, subcommittee chairman Bobby Rush (D-IL) committed to moving forward within two weeks on on a vote on the legislation.

Today, we are signed onto testimony of the Consumer Federation of America's Rachel Weintraub before the House Energy and Commerce Committee at its hearing on product safety reform. (Note-- the committee has even posted a front page link to The Year of the Recall, a new Consumers Union report.) Meanwhile, after years of administration attacks (not mere benign neglect) on protecting Americans from product safety hazards, expect the Michael Leavitt-chaired White House import safety working group to back some sort of modest reforms today (New York Times and AP via Washington Post). We expect it will overly rely on self-regulation and the sort of tortured risk analysis favored by the administration over the more sensible precautionary principle, although press reports indicate positively that it will recommend strengthened recall authority at FDA and CPSC. Don't know just what it will say about the hazards to the public of CPSC officials flying around on the industry's planes or the industry's dime. From the Washington Post story today CPSC's Ethics-Review Process For Travel Criticized by Experts by reporter Elizabeth Williamson:

The $3,730 tab for Faulk and Nord's trip was to be paid by the Toy Industry Foundation, whose mission, according to the ethics memo, is to help at-risk children "by meeting a vital, yet frequently overlooked, developmental need often missing in their lives -- play."

The key ethics review memo states at the top that it came from Faulk, whom it describes as the "Designated Agency Ethics Official." But it was signed by someone the CPSC yesterday called "an alternate ethics officer" because Faulk was the traveler.

Considering everything negative about reform that Nancy Nord has been saying from inside the CPSC, (supposedly an independent agency), here's a surprisingly weak letter from White House economic chief Al Hubbard expressing the administration's official position opposing S. 2045, the CPSC Reform Act, which passed the Senate Commerce Committee yesterday. He does take the opportunity, however, to bash those pesky state Attorneys General. (Our previous CPSC blog).

Two weeks ago California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation to make California the first state in the country to ban the use of phthalates in children's products. The legislation was a big victory for Environment California, the new home of CALPIRG's environmental work:

"When a child puts a phthalate-laden teether in her mouth, it’s like sucking on a toxic lollypop," said Rachel Gibson, Staff Attorney for Environment California. Phthalates have been shown to interfere with the natural functioning of the hormone system. These toxic chemicals have been linked to reproductive problems, early onset of puberty, liver and thyroid damage, and testicular cancer.

(UPDATE: Here is Nord's letter.) The acting chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Nancy Nord, has told Senate Commerce Committee leaders in a letter that large parts of their PIRG-backed CPSC reform bill [S. 2045, the CPSC Reform Act of 2007, sponsored by Sens. Pryor-D-AR, Inouye, D-HI, Durbin-D-IL and others] scheduled for a committee vote next Tuesday are "crippling" and "hampering" to product safety. From Nord:

The result is clear: enactment of S. 2045 would harm product safety and put the American people at greater risk.

While Nord makes some useful suggestions on personnel and rulemaking issues raised by the bill, much of the letter reflects her personal view that holding wrongdoers more accountable is the wrong way to go. We disagree.

What disappoints me most is that Nord reserves some of her greatest ire for one of the most important sections of the bill, its provision granting co-enforcement authority of product safety laws to state Attorneys General, saying that it "would invite nothing short of product safety chaos" and "undoubtedly lead to the inconsistent application of federal law." This section of her letter, which incidentally is addressed not only to full committee chair Daniel Inouye but also to subcommittee chair Mark Pryor, the former Arkansas Attorney General, reads like something out of the big-business-backed American Enterprise Institute's anti-state attorney general campaign organizing materials (previous blog has links). It's clear, from the federal government's abdication of its role as a health and safety enforcer, that we need 51 consumer cops, not one.

Annys Shin of the Washington Post also has a story on the letter: Product Safety Chief Sees Setbacks in Senate Bill.

Massive Day of Action Targets Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) and 88 Toys "R" Us Stores as Activists Turn to Consumers to Join Campaign against Toxic Toys at Toys "R" Us.
Concerned mothers and advocates for children will step up the campaign for toxic free toys on Wednesday as they head out to nearly a hundred Toys "R" Stores nationwide to intensify call on one of the chain's private equity owners -- Kholberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR) -- to make sure Toys "R" Us stops selling dangerous toys and starts requiring its suppliers to adhere to a strict, verifiable code of conduct.

KKR, profiled in the best selling book Barbarians at the Gate, make their money by buying companies with borrowed money and then selling them a few years later for a quick profit -- in some cases, a profit achieved through dramatic cost cutting or downsizing. Last week, the coalition of concerned parents and legislators released a report which detailed safety lapses and multiple recalls associated with Toys "R" Us, Dollar General, and other companies owned in whole or in part by KKR. Hundreds of thousands of products sold by these companies were recalled this summer because of dangerous lead levels. Despite the recalls, another toxic toy was found on Toys "R" Us shelves just this month. The Center for Environmental Health reported Oct. 11 that test results for a Marvel Curious George doll bought recently at Toys "R" Us showed more than 10 times the legal lead-paint limit.

Today's New York Times story Dangerous Sealer Stayed on Shelves After Recall by Eric Lipton points out that even imminent hazards -- 80 injury reports, 2 known deaths, and the lungs of Walter Friedel left "chemically inflamed" -- don't always result in immediate recalls of products like Stand 'n Seal by the CPSC.

The product offered "a revolutionary fast way" to seal grout around tiles and, its label boasted, any extra spray would "evaporate harmlessly." "It sounds like no big deal," Dr. Friedel said, looking back. But instead of watching football that afternoon, Dr. Friedel, a 63-year-old physician, ended up being rushed to the hospital, where he would spend four days in intensive care, gasping for air, his lungs chemically inflamed.

As Lipton notes, recalcitrant corporate wrongdoers routinely try to dodge responsibility for recalls, and often move slowly to disclose critical information (even when the law requires it to be to be passed on to the CPSC within 24 hours), but the problems are also partly the fault of the CPSC.

And then, after receiving repeated complaints that the hazard persisted long after the recall, the agency failed to follow up adequately, documents show.

Even if the slip-ups were a result of companies having concealed important evidence, the commission still has a responsibility to use its enforcement powers to investigate and, if appropriate, to issue fines. To date, more than two years after the commission became aware of the problems with Stand 'n Seal, no fines have been issued.

In my Senate testimony on the CPSC last week I emphasized that recalls don't always result in dangerous products being removed from the shelves. It isn't only that not every ma-and-pa store hears about the recall. That's a problem, but many others exist. Often, for example, companies refuse to agree to a recall, and stall for weeks or months. Then, they capitulate only to a corrective action, where old product stays on store shelves while new product is supposedly made safe. Or, consumers who complain are sent repair kits, but no on else is helped. Lipton's story goes on to talk about the recent Hasbro Easy-Bake oven debacle:

"A recall is not necessarily a recall, that is what it comes down to," said Stuart L. Goldenberg, a Minneapolis lawyer who represents a family whose child was injured using an Easy-Bake toy oven. The maker, Hasbro, alerted consumers about injuries to children's fingers from the ovens, first [February 2007] simply offering a repair kit, but then expanding to a full-fledged recall after dozens of additional injuries [in August 2007, and the "additional injuries' included a "partial amputation"] were reported. [Material in [brackets] added by me.]

Along with other consumer groups in the U.S. and Europe, we also anxiously await any announcement by the CPSC as to whether Mattel will be fined for its own magnet debacle. Polly Pockets were originally recalled in November 2006. The recall was expanded in August 2007, during the tsunami wave of Mattel recalls. Did Mattel withhold any information and all of a sudden come clean? Its Fisher-Price unit paid CPSC a big (sort of) fine this year: Fisher-Price Fined $975,000 for Failing to Report a Serious Choking, Aspiration Hazard with a Popular Children's Toy. And that was not the first time. And Mattel chief Eckert has been widely reported (Hope Yen of AP in USA Today) as having his own interpretation of CPSC rules requiring hazard to notification within 24 hours:

Under federal rules, manufacturers with a few exceptions must report all claims of potentially hazardous product defects within 24 hours. Mattel reportedly took months to gather information and privately investigate problems after receiving complaints from consumers. On Wednesday, Eckert said Mattel has been working with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to "develop a new set of reporting protocols" but denied any suggestions of a feud with the agency.

We testified (my testimony) yesterday at a hearing on CPSC/China/toy recall issues before Senator Mark Pryor's (D-AR) subcommittee of the Commerce Committee in favor of his bill: the CPSC Reform Act of 2007, S. 2045 (we also suggested improvements) to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Obviously, the National Association of Manufacturers opposed the bill, especially its provisions to increase civil penalties, let state Attorneys General police the product safety beat, and eliminate unnecessary secrecy in CPSC activities. But, astonishingly, acting CPSC chair Nancy Nord largely agreed with NAM, especially when she said that eliminating secrecy would be "counter-productive." She essentially said that their relationship with corporate wrongdoers would be jeopardized. Former CPSC Chair, Ann Brown, in Annys Shin's Washington Post story Head of CPSC Opposes Measure on the hearing, said, and we agree:

"She thinks it's the industry product safety commission," said Ann Brown, CPSC chairman under President Bill Clinton. The current law "stands in the way of consumers getting prompt information, and it should be amended and changed."

We testify this afternoon at a hearing of a U.S. Senate Commerce Committee subcommittee on major legislation, the CPSC Reform Act of 2007, S. 2045. The bill has the potential, if improved in a few ways and not watered down in others, to go a long way toward:

The bill is introduced by subcommittee chair Mark Pryor (D-AR), a former state attorney general, along with full committee chair Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and the Senate's #2 leader, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), as well as committee members Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Bill Nelson (D-FL). Watch on the Internet at 2:30pm.

Check out Annys Shin's story in today's Washington Post: Toymaker Rushed Gifts To Customers but Didn't Get the Lead Out. The replacement toys (CPSC recall announcement) for some recalled lead-laden toys turned out be full of lead also:

One of the gifts, a gray railway car with a white roof called the Toad vehicle, and four other Thomas & Friends toys were recalled Wednesday by RC2 of Oak Brook, Ill. The toys in both recalls were made by a Chinese subcontractor, Hansheng Wood Products.

Today the United Steelworkers, joined by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) will launch a Stoptoxicimports.org campaign aimed at lead in children's products and other problems:

The U.S. leg of the campaign was announced at the Capitol a day after the effort kicked off in Toronto at the union's Women of Steel Conference, where nearly 1,000 activists received lead screening kits and planned international mobilization against toxic trade.

Women of Steel and the USW's Health, Safety and the Environment team will conduct "Safe Home Sessions" across the United States and Canada, where they will do lead testing and provide training on how to remove lead products, education about trade issues and tips for political action.

[At the end of this post is a release "The CPSC: The Little Agency That Couldn't." PIRG put it out at the first hearing yesterday.] In testimony today before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Dana Best, MD of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended that lead limits for "all products intended for use by or in connection with children" be set to allow exposure to no more than trace amounts of lead:

The Academy recommends defining a "trace" amount of lead as no more than 40 ppm, which is the upper range of lead in uncontaminated soil.

She is finally asking Congress for help. It's about time. From AP:

Leaders of the agency responsible for protecting consumers from faulty products said Wednesday that Congress should increase their budget and power in the wake of huge recalls of lead-contaminated toys..."Our small agency has been ignored by the Congress and the public for way too long," said the acting chairman, Nancy A. Nord. "Our laboratory desperately needs to be modernized."

The CPSC: The Little Agency That Couldn't

"Information obtained by committee investigators that retailers have not informed the public of numerous lead hazards in children’s toys and products is not surprising. The CPSC law is so weak that it allows manufacturers and retailers to control negotiations over the terms and timing of so-called "voluntary" recalls. With no money and little power, the CPSC is the little agency that couldn't.

Congress needs to do three things to guarantee the safety of toys and other children’s products:

First, it must increase the CPSC's funding and its authority to monitor the marketplace, order recalls, notify the public and impose penalties on companies that break the law;

Second, Congress must immediately ban lead in all toys and children's products;

Third, Congress must add safety links to the import supply chain, including adding more inspectors at ports of entry, imposing measures to require government enforced mandatory third party testing, requiring product traceability labeling rules and adding bonding requirements for all importers to guarantee that they can pay for recalls, if necessary.

U.S. PIRG intends to work to ensure that any final safety laws enacted by Congress protect children and the public, not companies that break the law."
-30-

U.S. PIRG serves as the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, which are non-profit and non-partisan organizations that stand up to powerful interests. In November, the PIRGs will release their 22nd annual Trouble In Toyland report, highlighting lead and other toxic hazards, as well as balloons, small parts and other choking hazards. More information at our websites www.uspirg.org and www.toysafety.net, and breaking consumer news at the U.S. PIRG Consumer blog www.uspirg.org/consumer

The CPSC has announced 4 more lead recalls:

All toys manufactured in China. More info here at CPSC. PIRG's toysafety.net pages.

Donald Mays, a senior official at Consumers Union and Consumer Reports, was among the witnesses at a Senate Commerce hearing on China and product and food safety. The committee should post testimony for all witnesses soon. At the hearing, Mays unveiled an 8 point Consumers Union/Consumer Federation of America import safety plan:

The consumer groups propose pre-shipment inspections and testing, creating a U.S.-based certification program for products and a traceability program for food, products, and all components and ingredients in order to hold producers, importers, distributors, and retailers, more accountable. The groups also endorse requiring importers to post bonds to ensure sufficient resources are available should a recall of a product be necessary. The action plan includes giving all government watchdog agencies mandatory recall authority, the power to levy meaningful civil penalties and requiring safety investigations to be publicly disclosed.

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA ordering the U.S. EPA to reconsider its decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars. U.S. PIRG and a coalition of states, local officials and environmental groups had petitioned the court to act. Over at the Cleancarcampaign.org find out more about why we believe this case will also have an important impact on the efforts by California and nine other leading states to stop global warming. From U.S. PIRG's statement.

Nine states have adopted California's standards to reduce fleet-wide global warming emissions from new vehicles by 25 percent in model year 2009, rising to 30 percent in model year 2016. "The Bush administration should immediately give California and other states the green light to put their clean cars programs into effect. Any delay is completely unjustified given today's ruling," said U.S. PIRG's Emily Figdor.

Also Monday, the court ruled 9-0 in favor of Environmental Defense, NCPIRG and the North Carolina Sierra Club in a case requiring utilities to clean up old power plants (statement yesterday from Environmental Defense, our previous blog). Meanwhile, over at the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Michael Chertoff issued sweepingly preemptive chemical plant security rules sought by the chemical companies, after a weekend of spin doctoring and a news story (Associated Press) in which his press flack claimed that the new DHS rules would not preempt the states ("Those officials who have expressed concern about pre-emption will be satisfied with what they see in the final regs," said flack Russ Knocke). Chertoff borrowed his supposed "anti"-preemption language from the bank regulator known as the OCC. From the rule explanation:

the regulation is not to be conflicted by, interfered with, hindered by or frustrated by State measures, under long-standing legal principles.

Yesterday the Bush Administration EPA responded to a 2004 lawsuit filed by EarthJustice on behalf of U.S. PIRG and the Sierra Club by announcing a new rule cutting benzene emissions from gasoline to the air. From our joint release:

"The good news," said Emily Figdor of U.S. PIRG, "is that today's rule is expected to limit benzene levels nationwide, which should make the air safer in many places. The bad news is that EPA will allow benzene trading. That means some refineries won't reduce the benzene content of their gasoline, and may even increase it. Having benzene levels go down in Newark, New Jersey won't do much for the health of people in Portland, Oregon."

The end of the day this Monday, 5 February, is the deadline for filing comments to the Pentagon in support of the new Military Lending Act. It's the most important pro-consumer law enacted by the Congress in years. Its foes -- from the banks to the predatory lenders -- are lining up their lobbyists in Armani and Gucci-clad ranks to convince either regulators or Congress to weaken the new protections that apply to the camouflage-clad ranks [along with their families back on base] that we're sending to Afghanistan and Iraq to protect us.

The Military Lending Act protects active duty servicemembers and their families from abusive credit practices. It was passed with support of an unprecedented coalition of military family support groups, consumer advocates and the Pentagon itself, aligned because crippling, punitive predatory loans imposed on low-paid soldiers and sailors were hurting the nation's military preparedness.

The new Military Lending Act caps interest rates at 36% annual interest including extra fees and insurance premiums. It also prohibits securing loans with personal checks (payday loans), or through electronic access to the Service member's bank account, mandatory allotments, or car titles. Procedural rights are safeguarded through its ban on mandatory arbitration clauses, waiver of rights, and other burdensome requirements. You can comment at the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the somewhat clunky instructions for submitting comments. Comments are posted to the public, so be careful about personal information. Include the agency name (Department of Defense) and docket number: DOD-2006-0S-0216; FR Doc. 06-9518. What should you say? Here are some ideas:

1. Congratulate the Department of Defense on its thorough report to Congress (large pdf) on the impact of predatory lending on Service members and their families. Urge quick implementation, by 1 October 07.

2. Urge DOD to automatically provide coverage to servicemembers. Tell personal stories. By far, that's my most important advice. If you've been victimized by predatory practices--explain how it worked and how it hurt you and your family.

3. List the protections in the Military Lending Act that are important to you: The 36% interest rate cap (usury ceiling) that includes all costs of borrowing in its definition, the ban on soliciting unfunded checks as security for a loan, the protections against unfettered access by collectors to bank accounts or military pay, and the civil justice protections.

4. Urge DOD to deliver on the promises of the new law by applying it to all types of lenders, especially including banks, and to all types of loans, especially including all open-end credit (e.g., credit cards) as well as bounced check overdraft "protection" loans. These are a source of inordinate predatory profit for the nation's well-heeled banks [and, think about it, are such a deal, since you can avoid those shabby payday lending storefronts. Your bank will gouge you just the same right there on your monthly statement or at its well-appointed branch office.]

These are significant protections that will eventually -- if we work hard -- be extended to all Americans. For now, however, we must simply work hard to make sure that the banks are included and that rules aren't gutted. The banks are trying to create the false inference that the only problem the new law was intended to address was payday lending, not unfair bank and credit card practices. Wrong. Their record profits have been largely fueled by their virtually unregulated and growing use of predatory practices, from credit card tricks to bounce protection loans. They, along with the full-time predatory lenders, have many friends on Capitol Hill. The banks also have many friends at the Federal Reserve and the OCC (the obscure, but arrogant chief regulator of national banks). These bureaucrats are upset that the Military Lending Act passed through the Congressional military committees, not the banking committees, and that the Pentagon, not them, was given lead rulemaking auuthority, and have been whining ever since at their lack of control of the process. [They're not left out, they're just down a ways on the chain of command structure.]

By the way, we call it the Military Lending Act, for short, or the Sens. Jim Talent (R-MO)-Bill Nelson (D-FL) amendment to the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, in Congressional longhand.

Among many important points it makes, today's lead New York Times editorial -- Chemical Insecurity -- calling for passage of federal chemical plant security measures, makes a very important point we often make: federal laws should be a floor, not a ceiling:

Supporters of pre-emption always claim that they just want a uniform standard. But in situations like this one -- where the federal law is absurdly weak -- it is obvious that the real agenda is to block serious safety measures at every level of government.

National uniformity, conditioned on weak federal rules, not only takes new and visionary state ideas out of the equation, it also allows industry to continue business as usual under what are largely their own chosen rules.

One important test of the new Congressional leadership, on chemical security, identity theft and privacy, food safety, predatory lending, global warming and other key issues, is whether it will reject the bad public policy of national uniformity as the price we "must" pay for federal laws. Let's see whether the new Congress understands that if it passes federal laws that are good enough, it doesn't need to preempt stronger state actions. After all, the states are rational actors: if the new federal law is good enough, they'll move on to solve the myriad other problems they face. We'll have uniformity anyway.

But what if the new federal law isn't good enough? That's when we'll need the several states to act as laboratories, laboratories of democracy. Acceding to the tired, shrill industry demands for national uniformity to "prevent balkanization and patchwork quilts" is an unnecessary policy price that hurts our union more in the long run. More from PIRG on preemption. More from PIRG on chemical security and safer alternatives to toxic chemicals.

[UPDATED] On his first day in office, Ohio's new governor Ted Strickland took advantage of a procedural error by his predecessor to veto an anti-consumer bill (Columbus Dispatch) limiting the liability of lead paint manufacturers:

"This legislation weakens both consumer protections and corporate accountability, and I will not allow it to go into law, in its current form, during my administration," Strickland said. "Ohio's consumers must be allowed to hold companies fully responsible if a company has a product that harms Ohioans, especially children."

Cars and Cancer, a new report from our colleagues at Environment Maryland, finds that cars and trucks are "leading contributors" to excessive cancer risks for Marylanders. From the story Coalition Seeks Clean-Car Measure To Clear the Air in today's Washington Post:

Brad Heavner, state director of the research center, an offshoot of the Maryland Public Interest Research Group, called the level of air pollutants "just staggering."

"We know that this pollution comes predominantly from motor vehicles," he said at a news conference at Suburban Hospital's cancer outpatient center in Bethesda. "We also know that there is proven technology to reduce those emissions."

In addition to shutting research libraries (previous blog), the U.S. EPA has aggressively sought to weaken hazardous waste reporting rules known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) (previous blog) despite overwhelming support from the American people, health experts and state pollution agencies. U.S. PIRG staff attorney Alex Fidis has joined OMB Watch in its release of a new report (pdf) analyzing the comments to the agency on the proposal. Excerpt from the release:

According to OMB Watch’' analysis, EPA received comments from 122,420 individuals and groups. The vast majority of those commenting, 122,386 (99.97%), strongly opposed the changes, while only 34 commenters (0.03%) expressed some degree of support for the proposals. This support came almost entirely from companies and industry associations, with a few government agencies and individuals voicing partial support.

"The weakening of TRI reporting requirements provides yet another example of EPA's attempts to curtail public access to environmental information," said U.S. PIRG Staff Attorney Alex Fidis. "In this case, EPA wants to help hide toxic pollution rather than being upfront with the American public. The overwhelming repudiation of EPA's proposal is an unmistakable sign that no one is fooled by what the agency is trying to do here."

Comments opposing the changes cited concerns about threats to public health and the environment from increased, unmonitored pollution; the reduced ability of government agencies to make sound decisions on toxic pollution; and the lack of burden reduction that will result from the changes. For example, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality argued that if the changes go into effect, the department "would no longer be able to track potential hot spots without the amount and location of [toxins] released in Oklahoma."

As we have previously noted, the CPSC has been reviewing the health effects of lead in children's jewelry. This week, the commission voted to grant a petition from the Sierra Club to begin a rulemaking on a ban. We hope it's an expedited one with quick implementation but it may take a year or more. Here is a statement by U.S. PIRG research director Alison Cassady:

For Immediate Release: 12/12/2006 Contact: Alison Cassady, 202-546-9707

U.S. PIRG News Release
Consumer Group Commends Consumer Product Safety Commission for Banning Lead in Children’s Jewelry

Yesterday, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) took a long overdue first step toward banning lead in children’s metal jewelry. We have known for decades that lead can cause permanent developmental damage in children or even death, so we commend the CPSC commissioners for voting to protect children from lead exposure by granting a Sierra Club petition calling for this ban.

In November, U.S. PIRG released its annual Trouble in Toyland report, where we showed just how easy it is to find children's jewelry containing high levels of lead on store shelves. Our researchers found four items of children's jewelry that contain lead levels ranging from 1.8 percent lead to 34 percent lead by weight. The CPSC voted to move forward with a ban on any children's metal jewelry containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight.

We look forward to working with the CPSC as it begins a lengthy rulemaking process to implement a ban on lead-laden children’s metal jewelry. The new regulations should guarantee the strongest possible safeguards for children’s health while allowing states to enact more protective standards.

In defiance of requests from incoming Congressional committee chairs, Bush administration factotums at the EPA have begun shuttering regional libraries that have been important to citizens, first responders, plant workers and EPA's own scientists seeking information about hazardous chemicals and other environmental problems in their communities and workplaces. Today's New York Times op-ed column Keep the E.P.A. Libraries Open by Leslie Burger, president of the American Library Association, explains the important right-to-know and access to knowledge issues:

Anyone who needs to understand the environmental impact of, say, living downwind or downstream from a new nuclear power plant, or the long-term public health impact of Hurricane Katrina, cannot afford to find the doors barred to potentially lifesaving information. But neither can the rest of us, whose daily lives and choices will be affected by global warming. We all have a right to be able to get access to information about our air, water and soil.

In response to a Sierra Club petition, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff has proposed to the commission (staff memo (large scanned pdf) and Washington Post story) that lead in children's jewelry be banned. A vote could occur this month. There is no reason for manufacturers to add lead to jewelry, except that it is cheap and heavy and makes the junky product seem more impressive due to the heft. The CPSC clearly has the authority to take this action under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and the Consumer Product Safety Act. For U.S. PIRG's November 2006 report Trouble In Toyland, we had a commercial lab test some sample jewelry we'd purchased in various stores and found lead content up to 34% by weight. From our release:

Lead in Jewelry: Children exposed to lead can suffer delayed mental and physical development or even death. In February, a four year old died of lead poisoning after he swallowed a bracelet charm that contained 99% lead. U.S. PIRG researchers went to just a few stores and easily found four items of children’s jewelry that contain high levels of lead, ranging from 1.8% lead to 34% lead by weight.

Looks as if pressure from U.S. PIRG (our campaign materials), other public health groups and environmental champions in the Congress has forced EPA to re-think a "dumber-than-dirt" plan to roll back the reporting of toxic chemical hazards, as Juliet Eilperin reports in today's Washington Post story EPA Backtracks on Easing Toxin Rule.

U.S. PIRG (our comments) and the PIRG-backed Transatlantic Consumers Dialogue (TACD comments) have each filed requested comments to the European Chemicals Bureau in support of the proposed European chemical safety law known as REACH. Recently, the new U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, C. Boyden Gray, has been revving up industry and official U.S. opposition to the extremely pro-environmental, pro-public health proposal (my previous blog).

The April issue of PIRG's new newsletter, Preemption Alert, is available. Excerpts from the highlights: Protecting America's Food Supply: On March 2, over the objections of 39 Attorneys General, the House passed the National Uniformity for Food Act, which preempts at least 200 state food safety laws. Securing Chemical Plants: In a March 21 speech to the American Chemistry Council, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff signaled his support for weak federal safety standards for chemical plants and federal preemption of stronger state standards. Protecting Americans' Privacy: On March 30, the Senate Commerce Committee marked up a weak bill to protect consumers from those who seek to fraudulently access their phone records. This bill broadly preempts stronger state privacy laws or regulations as well as any laws imposing liability on companies for failing to protect consumer privacy. Providing Quality and Affordable Health Care: On March 15, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed a bill allowing insurance companies or HMOs to circumvent state patient rights laws.

We're supporting amendments by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and others that attempt to improve the draconian National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005. The bill eliminates strong state laws requiring warnings about a variety of toxic and other threats in our food supply. Its passage would make it harder for state officials to fight bio-terrorism. It was supposed to go to the floor last week (previous blog) but opposition has been steadily growing and House leaders had to delay it.

Citizens have a right to know what's in the food we eat and the products we buy, so we can make informed choices. Not so, says a proposal, HR 4167, expected to pass the House Thursday. Our letter to the House of Representatives urges a no vote. The National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005 is wrong-headed legislation designed purposely to eliminate well over a hundred different state food safety laws without replacing them with any federal protections worth writing home about.

The House has held no hearings on this controversial issue, but what the heck. Powerful special interests claim a need to eliminate strong state protections. The food industry leads the fight for this bill. Its crusade began with its anger over California's 1986 enactment of a tough citizen ballot initiative, Prop. 65, that requires warning labeling on all products (food, gasoline, paint, etc.) that contain toxic substances that could cause cancer or birth defects.
Our letter goes on to say:

In addition to nullifying proven food safety laws already on the books, HR 4167 would forever tie the hands of states and municipalities on a range of emerging food safety issues, whether or not the federal government has addressed public health concerns. Among other things, states and localities would not be able to regulate and label food products that contain irradiated ingredients, pesticides, antibiotics, or genetically modified organisms.

Federal legislation preempting state law would affect dozens of states, but the law that started the food industry’s crusade is California's Proposition 65. In 1986, California voters approved
Proposition 65, which requires warning labels on products containing chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects. Consumers have the right to know if their food contains dangerous chemicals, and states and localities have the right to provide this information in the absence of strong federal standards. Although critics of Proposition 65 say varying state standards pose a burden to food manufacturers, past administrations have dismissed this claim. When asked by the food industry to preempt California’s law, President George H.W. Bush’s administration concluded in 1989 that "no Federal preemptive action – either by regulation or otherwise – is warranted." The Reagan-Bush administration came to the same conclusion.

The Bush administration's EPA has issued new rules that allow the agency to use dangerous, unethical and unscientific pesticide tests conducted on humans to weaken public health laws. According to U.S. PIRG Advocate Meghan Purvis's statement: "This rule has an alternate universe quality, particularly as the Bush Administration claims to support a "culture of life" on one hand, while on the other hand this rule promotes testing harmful substances on vulnerable people. Despite EPA's statements, loopholes still allow testing pesticides on pregnant women and children." You can urge Congress to stop the Bush EPA's plan at CALPIRG. Click continue for more:

Pesticide companies like Amvac Chemical have paid "volunteers" to drink or otherwise expose themselves to doses of toxic pesticides, including one derived from World War II nerve gases, often at levels far above those considered to be safe. Unlike patients in clinical drug studies, human subjects don't benefit from being dosed with toxic pesticides. That's one reason why human pesticide testing violates several international agreements, including the Nuremberg Code. Worse, a congressional analysis showed that companies repeatedly misled people about the nature of the pesticides being tested on them, dismissed negative test results, and failed to gain the proper consent of their volunteers. More PIRG info here.

You can contact FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras and urge her to take action on the PIRG petition regarding some toy manufacturers deceptively labeling toys, teethers, and other children's products as "phthalate-free" when they in fact contain these toxic chemicals. The petition is a followup to independent lab tests we commissioned for our annual toy safety report in November. Previous blog.

Today PIRG released its 20th annual Trouble In Toyland report, documenting choking (small parts, balloons), strangulation (yo-yo balls), noise and toxic hazards found in children's toys. We also petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether toy companies are violating deceptive advertising rules by claiming toys are free of the toxic chemicals known as phthalates when it turns out that they are not, according to independent lab tests we commissioned. From the FTC letter:

The FTC Act gives the Commission the power to bring law enforcement actions against false or misleading marketing claims, including environmental or “green�? marketing claims. The “phthalate-free�? label qualifies as an environmental or green marketing claim, as the label implies that the product is less toxic than products containing phthalates.

Phthalates are a class of chemicals that pose serious reproductive and cancer threats and have been banned in the European Union, although U.S. regulators haven't acted. Six of eight toys labeled "phthalate free" contained the toxic chemicals. We also separately petitioned the Food and Drug Administration over hazardous chemicals found in children's nail polish according to their labels (we didn't test the nail polish):

Play cosmetics — cosmetics intended for children under 14 — must conform to the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Under the FD&C Act, a cosmetic is deemed adulterated—and therefore subject to regulatory action—if it contains any “poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, or, under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.�? We believe toluene, xylene and dibutyl phthalate meet these requirements.

Over the past 20 years, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has recalled or taken other corrective actions on at least 120 toys identified in PIRG reports. PIRG maintains a website for parents and toygivers at www.toysafety.net where you can download English or Spanish printable versions of PIRG's Tips for Toy Safety. Also, here's a link to a blog on our recent report on toxic chemical hazards in other children's products.

Continuing our theme of companies seeking to avoid responsibility: today, despite efforts led by champion Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the Senate Commerce Committee approved S 1110, the Engine Coolant and Antifreeze Bittering Agent Act (Allen-R-VA; Pryor-D-AR). The bill broadly immunizes antifreeze makers from liability for any consumer or environmental harms caused by inclusion of a so-called bittering agent designed to make the antifreeze unpalatable for children or pets. Excerpt from a PIRG/consumer group letter opposing the bill:

While this bill seems to be a well-intentioned proposal to reduce the incidence of poisonings of children and pets that may ingest antifreeze – a goal we support – this bill would waive all forms of liability for the industries involved in producing and selling antifreeze and coolants that contain the bittering agent denatonium benzoate (“DB�?) even if the use of this agent causes groundwater contamination, personal injury, property damage, or even death. This unprecedented liability waiver would apply even if children or pets are injured or killed by the DB additive, jeopardizing the very people and animals the bill purports to protect. Congress should not provide such sweeping liability waivers for a chemical such as DB that may not readily biodegrade, for which there is little human health data, and which could end up in drinking water supplies.

A new PIRG report The Right Start: The Need to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals from Baby Products documents toxic chemicals, including phthalates and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), in teethers, bath books, and sleep accessories.

U.S. PIRG tested seven infant sleep accessories, such as mattress pads and sleep wedges, for the presence of PBDEs or toxic flame retardants, and eighteen other children’s products, such as bath books and teethers, for the presence of a set of chemicals known as phthalates. The report was written by U.S. PIRG Environmental Health Advocate Meghan Purvis:

“Parents cannot be expected to deal with these issues on their own. The U.S. government must act to assist parents and ensure that products on the market are not potentially harmful for children." Purvis said.

The report found that in the absence of federl leadership, state governments are already acting to protect their citizens. Nine states have phased out two types of flame retardants from consumer products, and the California legislature is considering a proposal to ban phthalates and another chemical, bisphenol-A, from children’s products.

PIRG was joined at the event by Dr. Larry Silver, past president of the Learning Disabilities Association of America and current Clinical Professor at Georgetown Medical Center.

“Normal brain development is impaired by exposure to toxins, such as flame retardants and phthalates, often resulting in learning and other developmental disabilities. There is an immense disconnect and unacceptable delay between scientific data and public awareness and prevention,�? said Dr. Silver.

Yesterday the Senate passed a PIRG-backed amendment by Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to place a moratorium on human pesticide experiments. Read a release by PIRG Environmental Health Advocate Meghan Purvis. Unfortunately, the Senate also went forward with a possibly conflicting Burns (R-MT) proposal urging EPA to complete a rule regulating (and allowing) human experiments.

The pesticide manufacturers, now known benignly as "Croplife America," are behind the efforts to unnecessarily test chemicals on humans.

According to the PIRG release:

"In December 2004, 127 students at the University of San Diego took part in a study where they were exposed to chloropicrin, a highly hazardous insecticide which is also an active ingredient in tear gas.

One group of students in this study were placed in a "chamber" for up to one hour on four consecutive days with the vaporized toxic chemical. Another group had this chemical released directly into their nostrils and eyes."