Bush is ‘soft on lead’

You’ve no doubt heard quite a bit about toys manufactured in China reaching U.S. stores, despite the use of lead-based paints. McClatchy’s Kevin Hall reports today on the Bush administration’s role in the story.

The Bush administration and China have both undermined efforts to tighten rules designed to ensure that lead paint isn’t used in toys, bibs, jewelry and other children’s products. Both have fought efforts to better police imported toys from China.

Now both are under increased scrutiny following last week’s massive toy recall by Mattel Inc., the world’s largest toymaker. The recalls of Chinese-made toys follow several other lead-paint-related scares since June that have affected products featuring Sesame Street characters, Thomas the Train and Dora the Explorer.

Under federal regulations, lead paint is permitted in the coating of toys sold in the U.S., so long as it amounts to less than six parts per million.. The Bush administration has managed to screw this up in a variety of ways: 1) resisting better inspections of imported children’s products; 2) changing the focus on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) away from protecting consumers and towards business-friendly policies; and 3) canceling a Clinton-era drive for an outright ban on lead in all children’s products.

“The overall philosophy is regulations are bad and they are too large a cost for industry, and the market will take care of it,” said Rick Melberth, director of regulatory policy at OMBWatch, a government watchdog group formed in 1983. “That’s been the philosophy of the Bush administration.”

Except, whadaya know, the market hasn’t been taking care of it.

As long-time readers know, I have an odd sort of fascination with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is responsible for reviewing thousands of consumer products to see which, if any, pose a health risk and might need to be recalled. I thought I’d note that Bush’s agenda for the CPSC has always been fairly ridiculous. I’d even go so far as to say the president is “soft on lead.”

Earlier this year, for example, the Bush administration decided to look the other way on lead in children’s lunchboxes. Here’s the deal: the CPSC had two ways of testing these vinyl lunchboxes used by children. One involves dissolving part of the vinyl to see how much lead is in the solution; the other involves swiping the surface of a bag and then determining how much lead has rubbed off.

Using the first method, the CPSC found that 20% of the lunchboxes exceeded safe levels of lead. In one instance, a lunchbox had 16 times the federal standard. Naturally, the CPSC ignored these test results, using the swipe/rub-off tests exclusively. What’s more, as the AP explained, researchers changed their testing protocol: “After a handful of tests, they increased the number of times they swiped each bag, again and again on the same spot, resulting in lower average results.” The test results also show that many lunchboxes were tested only on the outside, which isn’t where the food goes.

Alexa Engelman, a researcher at the Center for Environmental Health, said, “They knew this all along and they didn’t take action on it. It’s upsetting to me. Why are we, as a country, protecting the companies? We should be protecting the kids.”

Well, we should be, but the administration has a philosophical problem with government regulations. If that means more kids are exposed to more lead, well, it’s the market’s problem.

Indeed, just look at how Bush has handled the CPSC. When Clinton was president, he appointed Ann Brown to chair the CPSC. It made sense — Brown had spent 20 years as a consumer advocate and served as vice president of the Consumer Federation of America, so she was a logical choice, who ended up doing a fine job on behalf of American consumers.

This is how a functional administration works — find capable, competent people to fill government posts, and the public will be well served. Then Bush was elected. He tapped Hal Stratton for the post.

A former state representative and attorney general in New Mexico, Hal Stratton never asked for [the CPSC] job, protecting American citizens from such dangers as lead-laced toy jewelry and flammable Halloween costumes. Instead, the former geology major who went on to co-chair the local Lawyers for Bush during the 2000 campaign initially wanted a job in the Interior Department. “That didn’t work out,” he told the Albuquerque Journal, “but I told them, ‘Don’t count me out’ … and they came up with this.” […]

[Now Stratton has] a track record: rare public hearings and a paucity of new safety regulations, as well as regular (often industry-sponsored) travels to such destinations as China, Costa Rica, Belgium, Spain, and Mexico. But at least Stratton won’t let personal bias influence him: Despite saying that he wouldn’t let his own daughters play with water yo-yos — rubber toys that are outlawed in several countries because of concerns that children could be strangled by them — he refused to ban them in the United States.

Now, I should note that Stratton left his post in June 2006, giving Bush second chance to find a qualified person to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Instead the president picked another hack: National Association of Manufacturers lobbyist Michael Baroody.

This is an administration that puts the needs of the public behind the needs of businesses, and appoints unqualified people to key government posts to implement an agenda that favors profits over people. We’re now dealing with the results.

Does Congress have any oversight on this? Not that that really matters, I guess–we have seen how the Dems in Congress are soft on Bush. And Cheney. And Abu G. Etc. Etc. Etc. Go Leahy–have another meeting and more discussion on the WH’s disregard of your subpoenas. You look strong blustering and blustering and blustering.

  • I’m getting a mental picture of Bush munching on lead paint chips as a child – it would explain a lot.

  • If that means more kids are exposed to more lead, well, it’s the market’s problem.

    Actually, it’s the kids’ problem. Its important to emphasize that because they are the ones dealing with the consequences. The market may “sort it out” but not before some kids get poisoned and die.

  • And then on top of this Bush does not want to provide insurance for kids who may have none and who are affected by policies such as these. Sheesh.

  • It’s a nefarious plot. Turn out a generation of kids with lowered IQ’s because of exposure to lead and you’ll have a generation of ready-made Republican voters.

  • Is this the same man who stopped federal funds for stem cell research because it leads to the destruction of a blob of cells that could become a child?

    Yep. Theoretical children, like theoretical democracies, get a lot of attention from the pResident. The real thing? Not so much.

    To add to what bubba said, I wish I could say for certain that Congress will finally rear up on their hind legs and stop BushBrat, but let’s just say I’d be pleasantly surprised if they do.

  • The market failed.

    They went to self policing their health issues in their products, to save money. That failed and they had to do a massive recall, one that cost a helluva lot more than the little bit of government inspection originally in place.

    So Bush’s method to help save the companies hurt them a lot more. Good for Bush, maybe now some companies will realize government isn’t out there to screw them (yeah, I doubt it, short term profits is all that matters in decisions like this.)

  • Why are we, as a country, protecting the companies? We should be protecting the kids.

    Kids don’t make campaign contritubtions or provide income and employment for “retired” Republican politicians.

  • Rian Mueller: “The market may “sort it out” but not before some kids get poisoned and die.”

    The problem with environmental lead poisoning is not that it’s lethal, but that it produces chronic brain damage. Why, it was just reported last month that an economist found a strong association between lead abatement and falling crime rates. Why, that makes it a public health issue!

    How does Bush imagine the market will sort out these things? That lead-painted toys won’t sell because parents prefer to buy non-lead toys? How will they know, unless somebody tests them??

  • True–children of the wealthy probably do not play with the same toys that the children of the not so well-off play with.

  • Add this to what Bush is doing to the CHIP program and you have two prongs of Bush’s “War on Children.”

    I agree with tAiO — If a physician was using lead to cause abortions, the right would be all over this, but because it will affect the health safety of children after they are out of the womb, they just don’t give a damn.

    I hope that this does cause some ripples in the market and that Mattel suffers and so do toys from China.

  • Grumpy wrote: “How does Bush imagine the market will sort out these things? That lead-painted toys won’t sell because parents prefer to buy non-lead toys? How will they know, unless somebody tests them??”

    This has always been the fatal flaw in the free-market worshippers argument: they assume that the Free Market (capitalizing the names of Gods) is somehow all knowing and wise and can detect, at least eventually, flawed and dangerous products.

    There are different levels of dangers, however, and not all of them are obvious to the public at large. If a company finds that its product will definitely kill a dozen people a year, compared to the hundreds of thousands that use it, and they will save $100k by not changing the product, what do you think they will do? If nobody is bothering to test the product for safety, they can take their money and kill people. The Free Marketers conveniently forget that in the end, the goal of a company is not to make a good product, or a safe product — it is to make as much profit as possible. If they can do so by neglecting quality or safety, they will do so in a heartbeat.

    Regulation is an essential part of any free market economy — it makes sure that safety and quality of a company’s good are directly connected to its profits.

  • True–children of the wealthy probably do not play with the same toys that the children of the not so well-off play with.

    Actually, one reason I expect to see prolonged fall out is because the toys are widely distributed, heavily marketed brands: Sesame Street, Dora the Explorer (and Mattel is also coping with a wide spread recall on toys with small magnets).

    In other words, the more money a parent has, the more of these toys their child is likely to have. Watch for people lawyering up over this one.

  • Bush has a habit of placing lobbyists in federal agencies who worked for the same corporations they are supposed to be protecting us from. Without impeachment Bush has full reign to let these corporations do whatever they want…and he does. We have no way of stopping him and one dead child is too large a cost for Congress’s complicity. Bush has turned the nation into Corporate America where no consumer is safe because “the market” doesn’t take care of anything until it is forced to by consumer demand. I only hope the same number of children don’t have to die as the number of pets that died before the government responds to the “free market” corporations.

  • I’ve come to the conclusion, reading things like this, that Bush’s actions can all be understood as him protecting his legacy. Not his greater historical legacy, mind you, or his legacy with the whole of the American people — just his legacy with the extremely rich R’s who will speak glowingly of his ‘trickle down’ attitude in the years to come.

    At heart, Bush is still an insecure buffoon, looking for praise from those wealthy schmucks he considers his ‘peers’. He saw how his father was cast out from the conservative establishment for trying to slow the hemorrhaging of the economy, and he’s deathly afraid of that happening to him. So his only actions will be those which keep him in the good graces of his boy’s club: no taxes, no regulation, and war, war, war.

  • GG introduces a good point about the dogma of so-called “market economics.” This is Milton Freidmanism: Free Market dogma currently holding sway in most of the Econ Depts at the major universities. Freidman was the Apostle of Greed. He even made the preposterous claim that Corporations can be counted on to regulate themselves in regard to such things as have been mentioned in these posts such as; selling faulty or dangerous products. Tell that to the thousands of victims of Drug Companies that have released drugs they knew to have dangerous side effects into the market place. To me the classic example of this bogus Free Market “truism” is the infamous Ford Pinto with its exploding gas tanks. Ford’s engineers warned the bean counters that the location of the gas tanks in the Pinto was dangerously prone to exploding during collisions. (I saw it happen once on the Oakland Bay Bridge). It would have cost Ford something like $24 per car to fix the problem but they decided it was too expensive. The result? Hundreds, I don’t know how many, died in accidents in Pintos with the exploding gas tanks. This is Free Market self-regulation.

  • This is clearly part of Bush’s “Final Solution”—to kill off the children who are most likely to grow up and hunt him—and his gang of criminals—down with torches, farm implements, and all those recalled items that have contributed to the poisoning of America….

  • Thanks the sister. The lawyers are clever in asking for a $50/potentially exposed child test rather than five zillion a child for emotional distress etc.

    Mattel now gets to make the call: Say no to a reasonable request and take another PR/Sales hit or go along with it and hope the kids don’t have elevated levels.

  • Someone, I believe it was Rick Perlstein, came up with a term for this type of governance: “E. coli Republicans.” They’ll gut your regulations, cut your taxes and let the market take care of how much lead gets into children’s digestive systems. Or how much lettuce and spinach end up contaminated. Or how many miners die in mines. Or how much poo is in hamburger meat.

    E. coli Republicans. It’s brilliant, whoever thought it up. I plan to use it everywhere I go.

  • I work for a big (and I mean huge) corporation. We purport to be customer-centric in the decisions that are made. Now we don’t have any kind of product that could become a threat to your health or safety, but the decisions I’ve seen made certainly are not made based on the customer-first. They are made on a profit-first basis.

    Here’s my theory on what has happened to the free-market economics. Back when it was a more competitive market and there weren’t all the huge conglomerates that are now bordering on monopolies, people could take their business elsewhere if they were unhappy with the company. Now we are at the point where you don’t get that choice. Take GE for example – say you don’t like what GE is doing to the cost of light bulbs. Well, you can stop buying them from GE, but in order to have some impact you also need to stop watching NBC and buying any product advertised there and also stop using the GE private label credit card you have in your wallet. They’ve got consumer goods, media and financial services covered. So now, it is just like squeezing a balloon of sand for the executives and boards. If you push out a segment of customers from one product, you’ll just pick them up with another product somewhere else. As long as the short-term profit makes sense they will do whatever it takes to make that profit until it comes back to bite them in the ass. Unfortunately, that rarely happens anymore so they are willing to take the risk.

  • R.T. Thaddeus wrote: “This is Milton Freidmanism: Free Market dogma currently holding sway in most of the Econ Depts at the major universities. Freidman was the Apostle of Greed. He even made the preposterous claim that Corporations can be counted on to regulate themselves in regard to such things as have been mentioned in these posts..”

    Well put. You made me think there’s another built-in assumption of Free Market dogma that’s also demonstrably wrong, and that’s human nature. Even if a company realizes there’s something wrong with their product, and even if they realize at some level in the chain of command that this flaw is going to personally cause them major problems, they may still be slow to act/ unable to act simply because they can’t face up to the unpleasantness in the short term. Who wants to be the person to announce that their product is killing customers? This is the same aspect of human nature that keeps people from going to the doctor’s office even when they know that something’s wrong with them – they don’t want to deal right now with the unpleasantness of a problem, even though they know it will be far worse in the future (no snark from you, “The Sister”!).

    This is a roundabout way of saying that Free Market dogma assumes that companies and individuals in them behave rationally, which is demonstrably not the case (look at Enron).

  • NPR had a pretty good piece on the Mattel aspect the other day that pointed out Mattel is actually one of the most consciencious of the toy manufacturers. They test more and report more, which is in part why they are now the ones in the news. They also own and oversee most of their own Chinese operations. The expert’s point was two-fold: (1) it is somewhat unfortunate that Mattel will take the brunt of this, because they are actually among the better companies on safety issues and (2) if Mattel, who does things better, is having this many problems, imagine how bad the rest of the situation that we don’t know about is (i.e. many companies – including companies who provide less supervision in China – simply aren’t testing like Mattel and are staying willfully ignorant and keeping us that way as well.)

  • I read an article somewhere the other day (sorry I’m not more specific) but it was comparing the same products sold by the same companies under US standards and the EU standards. And it also showed how the market over there was quite profitable, even though the standards for ingredients, for environment, etc where higher. So that ole right-wingers meme that the market won’t tolerate higher standards and inspections is a crock of Bushite. We used to be the standard bearers for the world in the quality and saftey of our products, under the E Coli conservatives, we’ve become an effing third world banana republic.

  • As a parent whose child had at least one toy involved in each of the most recent recalls (the Thomas The Crack Engine red paint, the Elmo, and the die-cast Sarge), we’ve come up with a not-so-perfect (in fact, nearly impossible) solution:

    We’re not buying any toys made from China.

    Now, some parts in some toys very well may come from China and we’ll have no idea. And, to be sure, when you look at the ridiculous number of toys out there, these recalls involved a tiny fraction.

    Of course, tell that to the parent whose kid has a developmental disability from chewing on a lead-paint-covered toy.

    Regardless, if these recalls keep happening for the next few months, retailers are going to get kicked in the nuts come Christmas time.

  • I’d even go so far as to say the president is “soft on lead.” — CB

    Yeah, well, he’s past 60. He was hard. Once. Vide Jenna and non-Jenna.

  • Don’t buy Chinese toys. My kids favorite ‘toys’ were soup cans, pots and pans, cardboard boxes and other household things. You can buy wooden toys made localy, blocks are great fun for most everyone! Books are another option. There are plenty of things to play with that aren’t made in China….. Personaly, I try like hell not to buy ANYTHING made in China and I know it ain’t easy to avoid their junk….

  • And Pelosi says that Impeachment is off the table for these guys.

    Dear God, when will it stop?

  • When will people realize that it is David Rockefeller who is behind this and so much more that it is astounding. King David has massive investments in China. He cares not that children are poisoned by lead. He only cares about his profits and his “new world order”.
    Please people, read about him and spread the word. He should be mentioned in every response on a blog. He has been for far too long hiding in the shadows and screwing this country. EXPOSE him!!!

  • We need to start calling this behavior what it is – this is not ‘free market’
    this is another example of GOP fascism: allowing corporate greed dictate govt
    policy, putting profits ahead of people and damaging children in the process.

    The end result of this behavior is many more special needs kids – requiring more
    expensive education and reducing the intellectual and consumer power of
    the next generation. Heavy metals in the environment, whether lead or mercury,
    cause brain and neurological damage – already 1 in 150 children are autistic –
    neurologically brain-damaged! A generation ago – it was 1 in 600 and that’s not
    just better reporting. Market forces DO NOT WORK, when the information
    is missing, skewed, or just plain lies.

    Of course, there is another possibility – maybe the intention all along is to create
    a nation of sheep.

    ‘When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying
    the cross.’ Sinclair Lewis

  • What’s to think? It’s but another sign of the same pattern. And yes, when fascism comes it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying the cross and sporting a corporate logo.

    It’s interesting that China has convinced the US to allow lead in our toys for children. China’s control of its citizens is legendary. And what better way to set up future generations for manipulation and control than allowing ingredients in their children’s toys that undermine their intellectual development.

    Lead in toys and no-child-left-behind programs….we’re creating a generation of easily controlled citizens.

  • The Bush government has been protecting us against terror the same way it was protecting our children from lead poisoning. In 2004, a government spokesperson announced that several million tests for bio-terror agents had been conducted without a single false positive result (which would cause panic). Of course that was ridiculous. It later turned out that positive results were being returned for more testing, until the test showed a negative result. The testing for lead was performed in essentially the same manner. It’s called testing to the result.

    In those branches of the government where scientific research is conducted it’s called falsification and is a punishable misconduct offense. When it occurs in areas under the control of political hacks its called business-as-usual. It leaves us with the interesting conundrum that the Office of the President is held to a much lower standard of conduct than many of its employees. Somehow that’s not very reassuring.

  • Dear China,

    Could you please stop using lead when manufacturing children’s toys/lunchboxes, etc?

    Thanks.

    Sincerely,
    The U.S.A.

    Dear U.S.A.,

    You owe us a gazillion dollars.

    Thanks.

    Sincerely,
    China

    Dear China,

    Point taken.

    Thanks.

    Sincerely,
    The U.S.A.

  • This situation is has many analogies, including the corporate policies that left 9 miners dead in Utah, and the ongoing presence of mercury as a preservative in almost all flu shots, at the behest of Big Pharma.

    Nobody is looking out for the average citizen, and our only recourse is to educate ourselves using what reliable media we have left.

  • First of all, get the facts straight – it’s 600PPM, not 60. Even trace levels are 30-40. You also have to consider surface, soluable and internal measures depending on function in order to assess a ‘dangerous’ level. Step back for a second and realize what you’ve turned this into. You’re blaming poor corporate tracking on the Bush Administration. It’s up to corporate and social responsibility to ensure our products are safe. And yes, the market will sort it out when it becomes educated. We need ethical, savvy, educated corporate leaders to hold themselves accountable and ensure the safety of their products. The regulations are serve as a requirement, they do not guarantee compliance.

  • Comments are closed.