UPDATE: Senate hearing on CPSC reform interrupted by more lead toy recalls, or, the key word here is “disincentive”
Friday, October 5th, 2007Thanks to the internets I was able to watch the Senate hearing for the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act of 2007 yesterday, made tolerable only by simultaneously reading the liveblog from Consumerist.
The consumer advocate guys were mostly all in favor of the bill, while the business guys had a few, well, concerns. Especially about a certain section of the bill.
Al Thompson, Vice President of Global Supply Chain Policy at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, said:
The proposal to impose criminal penalties and to substantially increase civil penalties [against companies that violate CPSC policies] would create a defensive posture in the private sector that could create disincentives for this type of self-disclosure rather than collaboration with government regulatory agencies.
By “this type of self-disclosure,” he’s referring to companies who bring new-found violations to the CPSC before the CPSC discovers them.
Similarly, the bill’s proposal to release confidential information disclosed by companies to the CPSC to other government agencies undermines the self-reporting protocol in place today. We believe this provision will create disincentives for companies to be forthcoming with information. The bill would eliminate the confidentiality between the CPSC and private industry. Disseminating confidential design, sourcing, sales, and product information to any government agency, domestic or foreign, increases the likelihood that this information will be disclosed to competitors.
And Joseph McGuire, president of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (?), said:
Several proposals in the legislation would authorize the CPSC to micromanage recalls in areas, such as choice of corrective action remedies, where it is much more productive and efficient to allow the companies to select the best manner to proceed. Nor should “voluntary” recalls become mandatory, thereby undermining the salutary process of encouraging “fast track” voluntary corrective actions.
So basically, these guys are saying that a) if you’re going to fine us that much then we’re not going to even tell you when we screw up, b) it’s more important to maintain our competitive advantage than it is to remove dangerous toys from store shelves, and c) we can police ourselves. Really, we can.
Now, I don’t know a lot about business, but I would think that getting poisonous toys out of kids’ mouths and off the shelves by letting consumers know about safety violations would be incentive enough. Gee, guess I was wrong.
And in the middle of all this testimony, a consumer advocate’s cell phone alert goes off to let him know that even more Disney toys (among other things) have just been recalled because of their lead content.
So, am I the only one who sees the obvious solution here? We have to eliminate our dependence on the gazillions of toys we buy. Our kids don’t need all this crap.
Committee chair Mark Pryor is accepting comments for another two weeks. Contact him with your support for the CPSC Reform Act.
UPDATE: U.S. PIRG testified at the hearing. See what they thought about it.