Who thought we needed the CPSIA and Why?
In 2007, a string of recalls of children’s toys for lead in paint hit the news. Lead paint had been illegal since 1978, so these toys violated existing laws. Although no children were poisoned by the lead in these toys, many people thought that action was needed to prevent recalls like these from ever happening.
In addition to this, in 2006 a child died from swallowing a jewelry charm that was almost pure lead. This unfortunate incident brought to the public’s attention the lack of standards for lead in jewelry.
CPSC was on the verge of issuing a standard on lead content in jewelry when Congress decided to step in. Transcripts of the hearings show that lobbying groups such as PIRG, Public Citizen, and Consumers Union led the charge and were responsible for some of the law’s most confusing provisions, such as the application of the law to all products, the extension of the age range to 12 years, and the provision that lead content and not absorbable lead is what matters. During the hearings, representatives of manufacturers and even the CPSC itself testified that the new law would have all the problems it currently has, but Congress went ahead with it anyway, evidently based on the testimony of these lobbying groups. When CPSIA was passed, these lobbying groups celebrated and took credit for their influence on the law.
Notable in all these hearings is that large toy manufacturers like Hasbro and Mattel, whose toys were included in the recalls of 2007, did not even testify before Congress until after CPSIA was largely a done deal.
For an excellent summary of CPSIA’s legislative history and the lobbying groups’ contributions to CPSIA, with a library of links to actual testimony, go here.
