Long-time readers know that I have an odd sort of fascination with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Here’s a good example why.
In 2005, when government scientists tested 60 soft, vinyl lunchboxes, they found that one in five contained amounts of lead that medical experts consider unsafe — and several had more than 10 times hazardous levels.
But that’s not what they told the public.
Instead, the Consumer Product Safety Commission released a statement that they found “no instances of hazardous levels.” And they refused to release their actual test results, citing regulations that protect manufacturers from having their information released to the public.
That data was not made public until The Associated Press received a box of about 1,500 pages of lab reports, in-house e-mails and other records in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed a year ago.
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 than 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.” (Alexa is obviously guilty of pre-9/11 thinking.)
And how could the [tag]Consumer Product Safety Commission[/tag] be so irresponsible? I’m glad you asked.
It’s because the agency is part of Bush’s hackocracy.
When Clinton was president, he appointed Ann Brown to chair the CPSC, which is responsible for reviewing thousands of consumer products to see which, if any, pose a health risk and might need to be recalled. 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 [tag]Hal Stratton[/tag] for the post.
A former state representative and attorney general in New Mexico, Hal [tag]Stratton[/tag] 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.
But when it came to the lunchboxes with lead, Stratton was in charge — and doing a heckuva job.
Am I saying it’s Bush’s fault that kids have been taking lunchboxes to school with dangerously-high levels of lead? Indirectly, yes. 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.