» Home

» News

» Topics

» Commentary

» Links

» Why?

» Made in the USA

» Supporters

Visit the store -
support the cause!

|
Just say no to "Made IN China":
Commentary and Opinion Pieces
|
|
You are here ~~>
Commentary
Index ~~> Commentary Page 2 |
|
<<It is an essential part of the agency’s
mission, because premarket testing is not required for consumer products in the
United States.>> HUH?? Excuse me, I
thought this was REQUIRED!
<<Critics say the Stand ’n Seal case demonstrates how the Consumer Product
Safety Commission is too overwhelmed with reports of injuries and with new
hazards to comprehensively investigate or follow up on many complaints.>>
Let's see... could it be they are understaffed, under-budgeted and
maybe need some help to protect us? Continue reading below... |
'Stand 'n Seal' is a product
offering “a revolutionary fast way” to seal grout around tiles and, its label
boasted, any extra spray would “evaporate harmlessly.” Dr. Fiedel, 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 after using the product and became the latest victim of a product whose
dangers had become known months earlier to the Consumer Product Safety
Commission. Two consumers died, and at least 80 people had been sickened
by using it.
But even then, with the threat well-documented, the manufacturer, retailer and
the commission had failed to remove the hazard from the shelves.
Nancy A. Nord, the commission’s acting chairwoman, said the agency was proud of
its record of moving rapidly and forcefully to pull hazardous products off the
market. “The point is to get the recall out there, to get the consumer
informed of what’s happening and then try to get the product out of consumers’
hands,” Ms. Nord said in testimony to a House panel in September. “I think a
recall process works very well.” (NOTE: read below at the bottom of
this page for the effectiveness of the recall process).
But the Stand ’n Seal case is a powerful illustration of the commission’s
failure.
The product’s maker, BRTT, appeared at times to be more concerned with
protecting its bottom line than with taking steps to ensure that the hazard was
removed. That meant that hazardous cans of Stand ’n Seal remained on the shelves
for more than a year after the 2005 recall. And the product that
BRTT initially rushed to put in its place — and which Dr. Friedel and others
bought — contained the same chemical that had apparently caused injuries in the
first place, the company and Home Depot now acknowledge.
<excerpted - read the entire article
HERE at the New York Times>
|
|
"Bigger Budget? No, Responds Safety Agency" - read
the entire article
HERE at the New York Times
Despite Ms. Nord's objections, Congress
increased the commission's budget by 30% before adjoining for the year
thankfully! (Source) |
"Bigger Budget? No, Responds Safety Agency" is an
article written by Stephen Labaton and published in the October 30, 2007 edition
of the New York Times. In it, Nancy Nord (acting chairwoman of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission) has asked Congress to reject legislation
that would double the agency's budget, increase their authority and sharply
increase its dwindling staff. HUH??
<<Ms. Nord’s opposition to important elements
of the legislation is consistent with the broadly deregulatory approach of the
Bush administration over the last seven years. In a variety of areas, from
antitrust to trucking and worker safety, officials appointed by President Bush
have sought to reduce the role of regulation and government in the
marketplace.>>
The legislation would have doubled the agency's
budget over the next seven years to $141 million as well as raise the staffing
levels by about 20% (staff numbers about 420, about half it was in the 1980s
with only one full-time employee to test toys). Fifteen inspectors are assigned
to police all imports of consumer products under the agency's supervision -- and
not all products are under the agency's supervision that we consume - but with
$614 billion in 2006, that makes each inspector responsible for inspecting $41
billion per year.
Let's figure this out now, and put it into
numbers we can relate to.
- $614 billion split by 15 inspectors equals
$41 billion per year each
- Let's say each imported 'widget' has an
imported value of $.50
- That's 82 million widgets
- Even if the inspections were made by one
widget per every 1,000, that's still 82,000 inspections
- 2,000 working hours per year (excluding the
80 hours per year for a vacation), that means each inspector has to inspect
and approve about 41 shipments of 1,000 widgets every hour.... exactly how is
this possible for any human to do?
Exactly who's side is she on? Big
business or the consumers?
In her letter, Ms. Nord criticized the provision to ban lead from all toys,
saying it was not practical. This is despite the fact China is the
manufacturer of almost 80% of the U.S. imported toys - birth defects in China
have increased by nearly 40 percent since 2001, now affecting nearly one in
every 10 Chinese households.
<<Consumer advocates also said they were stunned by the letter. “It was
remarkable to send a letter like that to a committee, when you’re in dire
straits and you need increased funding and you’ve acknowledged that,” said Ellen
Bloom, director of federal policy at Consumers Union.>>
I'm beyond stunned....
<article excerpted - read it in its entirety
HERE> |
|
|
-
WATER-PROOFING PRODUCTS STILL ON THE MARKET - December 27, 2007 -
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is unnecessarily leaving the American
public at risk through its failure to properly investigate a long-running
series of lung injuries tied to widely available waterproofing sprays, public
health officials from several states say. (Source)
-
WHERE ARE THESE
RECALLED ITEMS? Most of the unsafe toys and other products, it
turns out, may still be in the hands of consumers. American companies
face strict federal regulations for disposing of recalled toys, but they are
only responsible for the toys that show up. The other products left out there
— and in many cases, that is more than 80 percent — fall out of their purview,
a crack in the recall system that consumer advocates say leaves a giant
question mark over the trail of recalled toys. (Source)
-
HOW EFFECTIVE ARE RECALLS? It has long been the case that product
recalls generate dismal results. In the past, recalls have brought back 18
percent of products, on average, but low-priced toys and trinkets are returned
at even lower rates — often less than 5 percent. Research firms found that
some toys recalled this summer have appeared this fall on auction Web sites
like eBay and other sites that sell products in bulk to businesses, including
Made-in-China.com. Aubrey Liu, who works in Made-in-China’s Web operations
department, said in an e-mail message that it was difficult for her department
to pick out recalled products on her site because the Consumer Product Safety
Commission does not include the names of manufacturers in recall notices.
(Source)
- There is no federal law or regulation
against reselling recalled toys - a loophole that some legislators are trying
to close. (Source)
|
|
|
|
|
I said
that for China the first imperative was ‘survival’, but I must immediately add
that by ‘survival’ I do not merely mean to eke a living by disgraceful means...
~~~ Lu Xun, Modern China’s greatest writer
"No."
~~~ Rosa Parks, December 1, 1955
This site is © Copyright PDL 2008, All Rights Reserved
Steve's free web templates
|
|