CPSIA: The children’s product safety “crisis” that wasn’t

Rick Woldenberg has been looking into it:

It’s certainly true that children have been checking books out of libraries for many, many years with only paper cuts to show for their reckless behavior. And thrift stores have sold children’s clothing and strollers for years without incident, but apparently no one knew the “dangers” that lurked within. Indeed, all of these items have been considered safe until February 10, when magically they will become unsafe unless proven otherwise.

According to reports from the field, zippers and snaps on kids’ garments are among the components most likely to flunk the new CPSIA standards. In all probability, millions of existing, already sold garments would flunk for similar reasons. Yet have CPSIA advocates pointed to even a single instance in which an American child has been poisoned by garment zippers or snaps? Could this be because kids do not as a rule detach and eat zippers and snaps? “Why aren’t we seeing many claims of injury from all the dangerous children’s products still legally available in the market?” Woldenberg asks. “Shouldn’t we be seeing outrageous injury statistics right now, currently”?

To put it differently, advocates seem to have taken a few genuine instances of injury from distinctive, atypical products (lead jewelry, powerful ball magnets) and used them to manufacture an imaginary crisis in the safety of children’s products generally. But there was never any general crisis of children’s product safety.

Following up, as part of a more general critique of CPSIA advocates’ misrepresentations — which should be read in its entirety, as it makes many other valuable points — Woldenberg analyzes the purportedly alarming data on product recalls involving children (Excel spreadsheet). Separately, Wacky Hermit has been looking at the recall figures as well. She concludes:

Of the 63 recalls that would have been prevented by CPSIA, only 1 resulted in an injury (a child ingested lead paint from a crib and had elevated blood levels of lead). This means that had CPSIA been in place for 2008, one child would have been helped.*

If we’re going to extrapolate one or a handful of injuries into a supposed national crisis, we might as well deduce a “children’s bathing crisis” from a bathtub drowning, a “children’s kitchen crisis” from a stovetop scalding or a “children’s transportation crisis” from a highway smashup. Common Room has a wrap-up which also should be read in full:

the majority of recalls (by an astronomical number) are not because a item has actually harmed anybody, but because the CPSC or the company determine that perhaps a particular item might possibly harm a child- and, while it flies against our intuitive, emotional reaction to the news that an item has lead, not all lead products are the same. The lead in a kid’s mini-bike tire valve is not as dangerous as the lead in paint on a toddler’s block. … The CPSIA treats real, imagined, and nonexistent threats exactly the same, and that is not sound policy.

*More: Jennifer Taggart writes to say that looking at past recalls does not make it possible to assess the law’s full effect since most items covered by CPSIA had not been subject to federal regulation (except under general catchall provisions). So the generalization quoted above should probably have included some limiting language to that effect.

U.K.: “Disability discrimination risk for council suing former MD”

American legal concepts crossing the Atlantic yet again: “A council suing its former managing director for £1m for allegedly lying on her job application is at risk of being accused of disability discrimination, an expert has warned.” Cheltenham Borough Council claims its former executive gave false answers on a medical history to conceal a history of depression, but an employment lawyer says employers should not assume they have a right to discipline workers for lying about their medical history during the application process.

Readers of my book on employment law, The Excuse Factory, may recall the somewhat similar case with which I started off Chapter 1. Incidentally, those who are curious what became of the Boston police officer cited in that account may be interested in following this link.

Judges took kickbacks from juvie detention centers

Two senior judges in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, have taken a plea agreement under which they will serve seven years in prison. The judges are “alleged to have pocketed $2.6 million in payments from juvenile detention center operators”. After helping the center operators secure a county contract, according to their critics, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan then proceeded to railroad hundreds of kids to the centers on petty charges to provide the operators with a clientele to serve (Philadelphia Inquirer, Legal Intelligencer, Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader and more via Instapundit)

CPSIA, board games and hobby gaming

Trask at Living Dice explains; more here and here. And in response to a comment:

The “it does not apply to hobby games because they are for older people” probably will not fly. I cannot imagine the government will let industry decide what game is for over 12 year old players. If they did that even “Chutes and Ladders” will become “for 12 and older” to save on the testing. Well, that may be an exaggeration, but you get the idea. No, I think the books and games that are playable by early teens will probably get scooped up in this definition as well. Sadly, that covers most hobby games.

February 3 roundup

  • Lawyer charged with particularly awful pattern of thefts from disabled/incapacitated persons [NYTimes, Steven Rondos]
  • “Buy American” provisions in stimulus bill could start trade war [Postrel]. Parting blow to America’s taste buds: outgoing Bush admininstration slapped high tariffs on Roquefort cheese, Irish oatmeal [Cowen, MargRev]
  • In widening scandal of U.K. miners’-claim lawyers, one law firm found to have funneled more than £6 million to Arthur Scargill’s union [Times Online]
  • 1936 Clarence Darrow piece on how to pick a jury makes a sort of time capsule of wince-worthy stereotypes [Deliberations]
  • Want to start up moving company in Oregon or liquor store in California? You might find your competitors can legally block you [Coyote]
  • Maybe there’s hope for Dahlia Lithwick, she “shares concerns” about lame lawsuits and judgment-warping liability fears [Slate, on Philip Howard’s Life Without Lawyers]
  • Dear major banks: Regret to inform must impose high penalties for your unauthorized overdraft of our funds [Naked Capitalism]
  • “Ethics laundering”: how lawyers can use Internet to evade NY rules against client solicitation [Turkewitz]

“Ringling Bros. Elephant Trial Promises to Be a Circus”

“After more than eight years of litigation, lawyers for Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus will appear in federal court this week to square off against a handful of animal welfare organizations that have filed suit against the circus alleging that it routinely violates federal law by abusing its elephants. The case is a major test for the reach of the Endangered Species Act, which for the first time is being used by private citizens to try to influence the care of animals already in captivity.” If the complainants, led by the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), succeed in the creative effort to reshape the Endangered Species Act into a federal animal welfare statute, lawsuits in other areas are likely to follow [Legal Times]