December, 17 2008, 01:02pm EDT
Closing Santa's Sweatshop: How to Deliver on Obama's and Congress' Toy Safety and Fair-Trade Promises
New Report Documents Record 2008 Toy Import Levels and Safety-Policy Failures
WASHINGTON
As U.S. toy imports hit record levels this year, U.S.
trade policy and outdated consumer safety protections expose America's
children to a flood of unsafe toys, according to a study Public Citizen
released today. "Closing Santa's Sweatshop" also documents campaign
pledges on import safety made by President-elect Obama and new members
of Congress - 34 of whom replace congressional supporters of the failed
trade-policy status quo generating the import safety crisis.
The United States is expected to import $23 billion in
toys in 2008, 90 percent of that from China. Imports this year
represent 90 percent of U.S. toys, which is the highest toy import
level and share on record. Many nations producing our children's toys
have extremely lax safety standards and enforcement. Yet, while toy
imports exploded by 562 percent from 1980 to 2008, the budget of the
agency responsible for toy safety, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), was cut by 23 percent, with staffing cut nearly 60
percent during the same period.
"While production of our children's toys has become
globalized, our consumer safety system and its protections against
injury and death have not," said Lori Wallach, director of Public
Citizen's Global Trade Watch division. "Our trade agreements contain
foreign investor protections that promote a 'low-road' strategy of
offshoring toy production to nations with lax safety standards and low
wages, while simultaneously imposing limits on the safety standards and
inspections we can apply to imports."
Unfortunately, the threat of toy safety improvements
being attacked as "illegal trade barriers" under current U.S. trade
agreements is no longer only hypothetical. The report describes actions
taken by China in 2008 invoking two U.S. safety initiatives relating to
state-level bans on lead and bisphenol A (BPA) in toys that China
claims violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. U.S. laws
challenged at the WTO have been ruled against more than 80 percent of
the time.
"The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 represented a real step forward on product safety but it failed
to thoroughly address import-specific concerns," said Todd Tucker,
research director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division and
author of the report. "Simply put, the new law does not adequately
update U.S. import safety policies for the 21st century reality that
many products are produced offshore."
As of 2007, the CPSC had no full-time staff at any of
326 U.S. ports and mostly focused part-time energies on Los Angeles and
New York, leaving 324 ports virtually unchecked, according to the CPSC.
In 2008, the CPSC claims to be monitoring at least nine of America's
326 ports, but could not confirm if there were any full-time safety
inspectors at any U.S. port. Moreover, even once the new law's
increases in CPSC staffing and budget levels are fully phased in, the
agency's staffing levels will actually be down 49 percent relative to 1980 levels.
The report concludes that to bring U.S. product
safety policy up to date with the realities of globalized production
and thus effectively remedy the imported product safety crisis,
Congress and the Obama administration must:
- Alter various provisions of U.S. trade agreements
that currently encourage the offshoring of manufacturing and limit
border inspection and imported product safety standards; - Provide domestic agencies responsible for product
safety with new authority to inspect products and facilities overseas
such that a nation's failure to cooperate with inspections would result
in imports from that nation being halted (as is U.S. policy for
imported meat and poultry); - Temporarily halt suspicious imports via a "hot button" prior to a hearing;
- Generate funding to ensure inspection of goods produced offshore; and
- Require import bonding to fund recalls.
"Fortunately, both President-elect Obama and 71 members
of Congress elected in 2006 and 2008 campaigned on fair trade,
including strengthened imported product safety," Wallach said. "These
policymakers replaced predecessors who did not prioritize import safety
and other fair-trade policies. Consumers expect these officials to
honor their campaign pledges."
The Public Citizen report highlights candidate
commitments based on a comprehensive analysis of more than 130 races
with an updated appendix summarizing the import safety and fair
trade-related commitments and campaign ads of more than 260 candidates.
For instance, Obama said: "As president, I'll work with
China to keep harmful toys off our shelves ... and will ban "toys that
contain more than a trace level of lead, coming from China or anywhere
else." He also said, "We should amend NAFTA (the North American Free
Trade Agreement) to make clear that fair laws and regulations written
to protect citizens in any of the three countries cannot be overridden
simply at the request of foreign investors." Obama's commitments became
part of the Democratic platform, which contained a trade reform agenda
not seen in past platforms, including that no future bilateral trade
pacts "will stop the government from protecting the environment, food
safety, or the health of its citizens; [or] give greater rights to
foreign investors than to U.S. investors."
In the 2008 elections, Obama was joined by 34 new fair
traders in the House and Senate who replaced members of Congress who
had supported NAFTA, the WTO, current China trade policy and other
anti-fair trade measures. These new fair traders came from both parties
and all regions of the country - especially outside the Rust Belt,
which Beltway pundits have considered the only place trade issues
resonate - and included Rep.-elect Jared Polis (D-Colo.),
Sen.-elect Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rep.-elect Bobby Bright (D-Ala.),
Sen.-elect Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Rep.-elect Kathy Dahlkemper
(D-Pa.), among others highlighted in the report. These new members will
be joining a growing bloc of fair traders in Congress who will be
seeking to remedy the problem cited so clearly by Polis, who said: "The
Bush administration is asleep at the wheel while multinational
corporations are putting profits before safety and products that harm
kids are entering our country from China and other nations with poor
safety records ... We need to make sure that defects are identified and
addressed before products reach the shelves and get in the hands of our children."
READ the report.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
'My Child Is Human': Palestinian American Mother Disrupts Austin Testimony
"Secretary Austin, why are you denying Israel's genocide in Gaza?" advocates asked the defense secretary at a hearing.
Apr 17, 2024
A week after Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told lawmakers that the U.S. has no "evidence of genocide being created" in Gaza, peace activists disrupted the Pentagon chief's testimony on the Biden administration's 2025 budget request and demanded he acknowledge the humanity of Palestinian children.
"My child is human!" said Nasbeebah Hajjaj, a Palestinian-American woman who held up her 16-month-old son, Hamza. "Stop killing Palestinian children!"
The anti-war group CodePink said Hajjaj immigrated to the U.S. with her family when she was two months old, and has lost approximately 20 family members to Israel's bombardment of Gaza since October.
The group targeted Austin's testimony a month after the Biden administration released its 2025 budget request—a proposal that includes $1.1 trillion in military-related spending. Despite growing calls from U.S. lawmakers and rights advocates, the White House has not announced conditions for military aid to Israel, which has been widely accused of human rights violations as it has assaulted Gaza and blocked humanitarian aid from reaching Palestinians.
Israel's bombardment has killed at least 33,899 Palestinians so far, and more than two dozen people have died of starvation in recent months as international experts have warned parts of northern Gaza are facing famine.
At least 13,000 children have been killed, and the United Nations reported in February that 70% of those killed overall have been women and children—even as Israel and the U.S. have insisted Israeli forces are targeting Hamas.
The International Court of Justice issued a preliminary ruling in January saying Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza, and lawmakers including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have expressed support for the ruling—but the U.S. has dismissed the court's findings, including at Austin's hearing last week.
While Hajjaj held up her son at Wednesday's hearing, another protester, identified by CodePink as Helen, addressed the defense secretary.
"Secretary Austin, why are you denying Israel's genocide in Gaza? Why are you denying genocide in Gaza?" said Helen, who was arrested after being led out of the hearing. "The whole world sees it! You know the laws of war! You know you have blood on your hands! You have blood on your hands! We have blood on our hands."
The advocates chanted, "Shame on you!" as they were led out of the hearing room.
Outside the hearing room, Hajjaj emphasized that the Biden administration has "the power to stop" Israel's attacks on Gaza by cutting off its military aid—of which the U.S. is the largest international supplier. The Foreign Assistance Act stipulates that the U.S. cannot provide military funding to countries that block American humanitarian aid.
"They just want to continue to arm death and destruction," said Hajjaj.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Sounds Alarm Over Growing Role of Big Tech in US Military-Industrial Complex
The paper's author found that the five largest military contracts to major tech firms between 2018 and 2022 "had contract ceilings totaling at least $53 billion combined."
Apr 17, 2024
The center of the U.S. military-industrial complex has been shifting over the past decade from the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area to Northern California—a shift that is accelerating with the rise of artificial intelligence-based systems, according to a report published Wednesday.
The report—entitledHow Big Tech and Silicon Valley Are Transforming the Military-Industrial Complex—was authored by Roberto J. González, a professor of cultural anthropology at San José State University, for the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International & Public Affairs.
The new paper comes amid the contentious rise of AI-powered lethal autonomous weapons systems, or killer robots; increasing reliance upon AI on battlefields from Gaza to Ukraine; and growing backlash from tech workers opposed to their companies' products and services being used to commit or enable war crimes.
"Although much of the Pentagon's $886 billion budget is spent on conventional weapon systems and goes to well-established
defense giants such as Lockheed Martin, RTX, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Boeing, and BAE Systems, a new political economy is emerging, driven by the imperatives of big tech companies, venture capital (VC), and private equity firms," González wrote.
"As Defense Department officials have sought to adopt AI-enabled systems and secure cloud computing services, they have awarded large multibillion-dollar contracts to Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Oracle," he added. "At the same time, the Pentagon has increased funding for smaller defense tech startups seeking to 'disrupt' existing markets and 'move fast and break things.'"
The report highlights the rise of a new class of billion-dollar military contractors, "a combination of gargantuan tech firms like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, and hundreds of smaller, pre-IPO startup companies supported by VC firms."
"The use of drones and AI-enabled weapons systems in Ukraine and Gaza, and a feared AI arms race with China, have fueled the
Pentagon's heavy investment in advanced digital tech," González wrote.
A lack of transparency is obscuring the true value of some of the largest military contracts to tech companies.
"One estimate indicates that U.S. military and intelligence agencies awarded at least $28 billion to Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet (Google's parent company) between 2018 and 2022," the report states. "The actual value of these contracts is likely much higher, because many of the largest known contracts with U.S. tech companies are classified and withheld from public procurement databases."
González found that the five largest military contracts to major tech firms between 2018 and 2022 "had contract ceilings totaling at least $53 billion combined."
"Major tech firms are also awarded large subcontracts from relatively obscure intermediaries or 'passthrough' companies that are granted primary contracts from the Pentagon—evading scrutiny and analysis," the paper adds.
González said that multi-year software-as-a-service contracts "could make the Pentagon and CIA more dependent than ever on the expertise of technical experts from the private sector."
The risk of conflicts of interest increases as military-dependent tech companies go public.
"As just one example, since going public, more than half of Palantir Technologies' revenue has come from the federal government," the report states. "Recent Palantir contracts with the U.S. Army Special Operations Command and the Air Force are worth more than $900 million. Palantir stock rose more than 170% in 2023."
There's also the danger of a "revolving door" between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon as many senior government officials "are now gravitating towards defense-related VC or private equity firms as executives or advisers after they retire from public service."
"The traditional 'revolving door' meant that a former defense official might accept an executive position with traditional weapons manufacturers; there are more lucrative options now," González wrote. "At least 50 former defense officials are working in VC and private equity, leveraging their connections with current officials or members of Congress to advance beneficial legislation for defense tech firms in their firms' investment portfolios."
"The implications are significant: The new 'revolving door' will accelerate military and intelligence agency funding for early-stage defense tech startups," the report states.
González details how "overblown, inaccurate, ideological talking points are driving defense funding for Big Tech," including "grandiose claims about the effectiveness of artificial intelligence; the overestimation of China's military and technological capabilities; the idea that America has the ability and duty to protect the world's democratic societies; and a steadfast belief that the best way to preserve U.S. dominance is through a free market that prioritizes corporate needs."
"These perspectives boost demand for military AI, and are promoted by a network of tech executives, venture capitalists, think tank analysts, academic researchers, journalists, and Pentagon leaders," he wrote.
Finally, the report warns that "aggressive Big Tech business models" can rush the development of weapons, endangering both combatants and civilians.
"Members of the armed services and civilians are in danger of being harmed by inadequately tested—or algorithmically flawed—AI-enabled technologies," the paper states. "By nature, VC firms seek rapid returns on investment by quickly bringing a product to market, and then 'cashing out' by either selling the startup or going public. This means that VC-funded defense tech companies are under pressure to produce prototypes quickly and then move to production before adequate testing has occurred."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Big, Big Deal': Chattanooga Volkswagen Workers Begin Voting in Key Union Election
"Looking back, you could see this being the first domino in something that changes the entire South," said one labor journalist.
Apr 17, 2024
Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee began voting Wednesday on whether to join the United Auto Workers, a closely watched election seen as a critical test for the emboldened union's ability to organize in the U.S. South.
The election kicked off a month after workers at the Chattanooga plant filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) formally requesting an election to join the UAW, which secured record-breaking contracts at the Big Three U.S. automakers last year after a historic six-week strike.
Following the hard-fought contract victories, the UAW launched what's been described as the largest union organizing drive in modern U.S. history, targeting nonunion car manufacturers such as Tesla, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
The Chattanooga election marks the third time in a decade that the UAW has tried to organize the Volkswagen plant, which currently has around 4,300 workers. Voting concludes on Friday.
"This election is a big, big deal—probably the most important union election that this country has seen in years," labor journalist Hamilton Nolan said in a Democracy Now! appearance on Wednesday. "Looking back, you could see this being the first domino in something that changes the entire South."
About 4,000 Volkswagen workers in Tennessee are voting on whether to unionize with the United Auto Workers. Labor journalist @hamiltonnolan says it's the most important union vote in years and could be the "first domino" in a wider push to organize the auto industry in the South. pic.twitter.com/RWFnO5KznI
— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) April 17, 2024
Chattanooga workers voiced confidence that this election will be different than 2014 and 2019, when Volkswagen employees voted against joining the UAW by narrow margins.
"We're going to win," Lisa Elliott, a quality control worker at Volkswagen, toldThe Guardian's Steven Greenhouse. "We have the momentum. I know this will be a historic event."
In addition to the Chattanooga effort, the UAW is trying to organize Mercedes-Benz workers in Vance, Alabama. Earlier this month, a supermajority of Mercedes workers in Vance submitted a petition to the NLRB requesting an election to join the UAW.
UAW's organizing efforts have drawn national attention—and ire from anti-union politicians, including the Republican governors of Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and other states in the U.S. South.
Joseph McCartin, a labor historian at Georgetown University, told Greenhouse that "a victory at Volkswagen would make a victory at Mercedes much more likely."
"Victories at both Volkswagen and Mercedes would be nothing less than an earthquake," McCartin added. "This would be the biggest breakthrough in private-sector organizing in decades. It would mean that the anti-union citadel [in the South] that has repulsed effort after organizing effort has been breached."
University of California, Berkeley professor Harley Shaiken echoed that assessment in an interview with The New York Times.
"It would be a revolution for the UAW and for the auto industry," Shaiken said of a UAW win. "It would break the glass ceiling for unions in the South, and would mean more purchasing power for working-class people in that region."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular