« Obama’s Health Care Overhaul Spurs Docs’ Broken Record Attacks on Patients’ Rights | Main | The FDA: Run by Colonel Klink? »

March 18, 2009


Sarah Natividad

If you read the law more carefully, you'll see that the CPSC can only issue such exemptions as books would merit on the basis of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. They are NOT permitted to make exemptions based on common sense, known usage patterns, Congressional urgings, or reasoned blog posts. Given that books were never a lead poisoning suspect in the first place, such evidence did not exist last August-- nobody ever thought there'd be a need for it. So now such research is being conducted by both CPSC and industry and it takes time. Moreover, it takes people-hours to do this kind of research-- people-hours that cannot then be spent on enforcing standards on toys.

People who are concerned about enforcement and think enforcement should be prioritized should be in support of increasing funding for the CPSC, especially if they are also in favor of CPSIA which requires CPSC to spend a lot of resources on proving books are lead-free. CPSIA allowed for such an increase, but Congress has not yet released the funds. Therefore the ultimate responsibility for CPSC's inability to enforce the law falls on Congress, who both burdened them with CPSIA and failed to provide them with the resources to implement it.

Joe Consumer

Thanks for sharing your views, Sarah.

You'll find that we address them in the following post: http://www.thepoptort.com/2009/03/true-lies-debunking-a-major-cpsia-myth.html

Thanks for reading ThePopTort!

The comments to this entry are closed.



  • Google



Got a News Tip?

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

  • All opinions expressed on this blog are those of the authors only. Any disputes should be addressed to the authors or commentators. The Pop Tort invites comment to further the debate on issues addressed, but we reserve the right to deny or remove any post or comment.
Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin