January, 30 2009, 12:54pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Consumer and Science Groups Set the Record Straight: Landmark Product Safety Law Makes the Marketplace Safer
Organizations Urge President Obama to Appoint New Leadership at the CPSC
WASHINGTON
In recent weeks, a number of misleading statements about the testing requirements of an important new product safety law have appeared in the media, on blogs and on other Web sites. While we have urged the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to promptly address reasonable concerns that have been raised regarding compliance, and provide better information about the new law, our organizations all agree that the law is fundamentally sound and essential to ensuring a safer marketplace. At the same time, we urge President Obama to appoint new leadership at the CPSC to help implement this important new consumer safety law.
Congress overwhelmingly passed, and President Bush signed, the landmark Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) last year, because of a dire need to stop the flood of dangerous, often life-threatening, products entering the marketplace. In 2007, there were 473 recalls of children's products, including millions of toys that contained dangerous levels of lead paint and other toxins. In 2008, consumers fared even worse with 563 recalls, including nearly 8 million toys.
In the past two months, the CPSC announced the recall of over 147,000 children's products for excessive levels of lead - including cribs, toys, jewelry, and school supplies. Three of the recalled products involved less than 500 units. These recalls prove that the law's implementation cannot come too soon. In fact, one of its most important provisions requires that children's products be tested for safety before they are sold. Few would dispute the value of this requirement, which many Americans thought was already the law.
The CPSIA is a strong consumer protection law that already provides safety regulators with the authority they need to ensure the safety of consumer products, especially those designed for children. For example, it has strengthened the agency's scientific integrity by making it easier for employees to anonymously report threats to the agency's science, and encouraging CPSC scientists to publish in peer-reviewed journals. Importantly, it also authorizes the CPSC to address issues voiced on behalf of small businesses - authority that the agency has begun to slowly exercise in some cases.
Unfortunately, heated rhetoric surrounding compliance is clouding the facts. For example, critics cite as "extreme" and "absurd," the testing for lead of products made purely from wood. In truth, the CPSC has the authority to exempt materials from testing requirements where there is no risk of harm to the public health, and it has already issued a proposed rule to exempt wood and untreated wool and cotton, which we agree is the right thing to do. The CPSC also may permit some businesses to meet the testing requirements by certifying that each component used is certified or exempt. These two simple types of rules - exemptions for materials that inherently do not pose safety risks, and allowing certification of components as free of lead and other toxins - would address nearly all of the concerns raised on behalf of small businesses.
Safety testing may impose costs on small businesses that were not already testing their products, but the testing costs have been exaggerated. Further, testing carries substantial benefits. For the first time, U.S. law will require proper safety testing for all children's products subject to mandatory standards no matter where they are made. That means big corporations can't skimp on safety by manufacturing toys in countries with lower safety standards, such as China. Further, on past occasions, small businesses have manufactured unsafe products that had to be recalled. Pre-market testing will assure consumers that products entering the market are safe. This testing also will help manufacturers avoid the substantial costs - both financial and to reputation - that can result from putting dangerous products on the market.
Critics also have claimed that secondhand retailers will have to test their products or dump their existing inventories. Both claims are incorrect. The new law does not require retailers to test and certify goods. While stores should not sell toys or nursery items that fail to meet safety standards, the responsibility and expense of certifying the safety of a product belongs to manufacturers. The CPSC has said that resellers should focus on checking their inventory for certain riskier product categories, including "recalled children's products, particularly cribs and play yards; children's products that may contain lead, such as children's jewelry and painted wooden or metal toys; flimsily made toys that are easily breakable into small parts; toys that lack the required age warnings; and dolls and stuffed toys that have buttons, eyes, noses or other small parts that are not securely fastened and could present a choking hazard for young children." The agency also said it will continue to put the most resources into removing high risk items, such as painted toys and children's metal jewelry, from the market.
As these examples demonstrate, the CPSC can provide implementation guidelines and grant exclusions from the testing requirements once businesses show that there is no risk of harm from the materials used. The CPSC is authorized to address most, if not all, the concerns of small business in a way that maintains the integrity of the law while offering relief to independent manufacturers.
Our organizations welcome commonsense, lawful exclusions from the CPSIA that do not diminish safety. Yet we are also cognizant of the fact that the CPSC in recent years repeatedly has put business interests ahead of its mission to protect public safety, and that it has a record of suppressing the research of its own scientists and technical experts if that research failed to deliver or support a particular outcome. Indeed, the CPSC's slow approach to providing guidance and information about the CPSIA has contributed to the growing resentment against the new law among small businesses.
We called on the agency several weeks ago to urge them to offer more guidance. But there are numerous other problems with the agency's implementation of the law. For instance, the Commission has expressly refused to begin work on a database that will make safety information available to consumers. Such actions demonstrate the urgent need for new, committed leadership at the agency.
The continued circulation of misinformation about the new law helps no one. The law offers important and long overdue protections for children, and it includes mechanisms to solve many concerns raised by industry. The CPSC must use its authority effectively and in a timely manner to implement this law as intended. So far, the law's implementation only highlights the need for President Obama to appoint new leadership at the CPSC immediately. At the same time, our organizations urge other stakeholders to focus their energy on joining us in seeking reasonable, readily available answers and solutions already in the law rather than attempt to weaken critical and popular new consumer protections.
READ the coalition fact sheet that sets the record straight on the CPSIA.
LATEST NEWS
Green Groups Slam RFK Jr. as 'Dangerous Conspiracy Theorist and Science Denier'
"With so much at stake, we stand united in denouncing RFK Jr.'s false environmentalist claims."
Apr 19, 2024
A dozen national green groups on Friday published an open letter exposing what they say are the dangers of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s quixotic Independent U.S. presidential bid by highlighting his embrace of conspiracy theories and his use of language often spoken by climate deniers.
"Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not an environmentalist. He is a dangerous conspiracy theorist and science denier whose agenda would be a disaster for our communities and the planet," the letter argues. "He may have once been an environmental attorney, but now RFK Jr. is peddling the term 'climate change orthodoxy' and making empty promises to clean up our environment with superficial proposals."
"The truth is, by rejecting science, what he offers is no different than Donald Trump," the signers asserted, referring to the former Republican president and presumptive 2024 GOP nominee.
The letter continues:
In the fact-free world that both he and Trump live in, objective reality simply does not exist. Their policy platforms are instead driven by what will benefit Big Oil and the greedy corporations that fund them. We know, however, that environmental progress depends on following scientific fact and putting people over politics.
With so much at stake, we stand united in denouncing RFK Jr.'s false environmentalist claims. We can't, in good conscience, let him continue co-opting the credibility and successes of our movement for his own personal benefit.
"RFK Jr. is a bleak reminder that our democracy is incredibly vulnerable," the letter adds. "Any support for this Kennedy-in-name-only will inevitably result in a second Trump term and the complete erosion of vital environmental and social gains made to date."
The letter is signed by the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, Friends of the Earth Action, LCV Victory Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, Climate Emergency Advocates, Climate Power, Earthjustice Action, Food & Water Action, NextGen America, Sierra Club Independent Action, Sunrise Movement, and 350 Action.
Earlier this month, the Kennedy campaign fired New York state director Rita Palma after she admitted that her "No. 1 priority" is to siphon votes from President Joe Biden—who she described as the "mutual enemy" of both the Kennedy and Trump voter.
Last month, More Perfect Unionreleased a video highlighting the ultrawealthy Republican donors and Trump backers who are also financing Kennedy's White House run, which many observers believe could play spoiler to Biden's reelection bid.
In a stinging rebuke, prominent members of the Kennedy political dynasty reaffirmed their support for Biden on Thursday. Numerous relatives have been urging Kennedy to drop out of the race.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Youth Lead Global Strike Demanding 'Climate Justice Now'
"We are many people and youths who want to express our frustration over what decision-makers are doing right now: They don't care about our future and aren't doing anything to stop the climate crisis," one young activist said.
Apr 19, 2024
Ahead of Earth Day, young people around the world are participating in a global strike on Friday to demand "climate justice now."
In Sweden, Greta Thunberg joined hundreds of other demonstrators for a march in Stockholm; in Kenya, participants demanded that their government join the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty; and in the U.S., youth activists are kicking off more than 200 Earth Day protests directed at pressing President Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency.
"We're gathered here to fight, once again, for climate justice," Thunberg toldAgence France-Presse at the Stockholm protest, which drew around 500 people. "It's now been more than five and a half years that we've been doing the same thing, organizing big global strikes for the climate and gathering people, youths from the entire world."
"I lost my home to climate change. Now I'm fighting so that others don't lose their homes."
The first global youth climate strike, which grew out of Thunberg's Fridays for Future school strikes, took place on March 15, 2019. Since then, both emissions and temperatures have continued to rise, with 2023 blowing past the record for hottest year. Yet, according to Climate Action Tracker, no country has policies in place that are compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
"We are many people and youths who want to express our frustration over what decision-makers are doing right now: They don't care about our future and aren't doing anything to stop the climate crisis," Karla Alfaro Gripe, an 18-year-old participant at the Stockholm march, told AFP.
The global strikes are taking place under the umbrella of Friday's for Future, which has three main demands: 1. limit temperature rise to 1.5°C, 2. ensure climate justice and equity, and 3. listen to the most accurate, up-to-date science."Fight with us for a world worth living in," the group wrote on their website, next to a link inviting visitors to find actions in their countries.
Participants shared videos and images of their actions on social media.
European strikers also gathered in London, Dublin, and Madrid.
In Asia, Save Future Bangladesh founder Nayon Sorkar posted a video from the Meghna River on Bangladesh's Bola Island, where erosion destroyed his family's home when he was three years old.
"I lost my home to climate change," Sorkar wrote. "Now I'm fighting so that others don't lose their homes."
Also in Bangladesh, larger crowds rallied in Dhaka, Sylhet, Feni, and Bandarban for climate action.
"Young climate activists in Bandarban demand a shift to renewable energy and away from fossil fuels," said Sajjad Hossain, the divisional coordinator for Youthnet for Climate Justice Bangladesh. "We voiced urgency for sustainable energy strategies and climate justice. Let's hold governments accountable for a just transition!"
In Kenya, young people struck specifically to demand that the government sign on to the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"As a member of the Lake Victoria community, the importance of the treaty in our climate strikes cannot be overstated," Rahmina Paullette, founder of Kisumu Environmental Champions and a coordinator for Fridays for Future Africa, said in a statement. "By advocating for its implementation, we address the triple threat of climate change, plastic pollution, and environmental injustice facing our nation."
"Halting fossil fuel expansion not only safeguards crucial ecosystems but also combats the unjust impacts of environmental degradation, ensuring a more equitable and sustainable future for our community and the wider Kenyan society," Paullette said.
In the U.S., Fridays for Future NYC planned for what they expected to be the largest New York City climate protest since September 2023's March to End Fossil Fuels. The action will begin at Foley Square at 2:00 pm Eastern Time, at which point more than 1,000 students and organizers are expected to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge to rally in front of Borough Hall.
The strike "is part of a national escalation of youth-led actions in more than 200 cities and college campuses around the country, all calling on President Biden to listen to our generation and young voters, stop expanding fossil fuels, and declare a climate emergency that meaningfully addresses fossil fuels, creating millions of good paying union jobs, and preparing us for climate disasters in the process," Fridays for Future NYC said in a statement.
The coalition behind the climate emergency drive, which also includes the Sunrise Movement, Fridays for Future USA, and Campus Climate Network, got encouraging news on Wednesday when Bloomberg reported that the White House had reopened internal discussions into potentially declaring a climate emergency.
"We're staring down another summer of floods, fires, hurricanes, and extreme heat," Sunrise executive director Aru Shiney-Ajay said in a statement. "Biden must do what right Republicans in Congress are unwilling to do: Stand up to oil and gas CEOs, create green union jobs, and prepare us for climate disasters. Biden must declare a climate emergency and use every tool at his disposal to tackle the climate crisis and prepare our communities to weather the storm. If Biden wants to be taken seriously by young people, he needs to deliver on climate change."
The coalition is planning events leading up to Monday including dozens of Earth Day teach-ins beginning Friday to encourage members of Congress to pressure Biden on a climate emergency and Reclaim Earth Day mobilizations on more than 100 college and university campuses to demand that schools divest from and cut ties with the fossil fuel industry.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ahead of Plastics Treaty Summit, Studies Make Case for Stopping Pollution at the Source
"Whether the treaty includes plastic production cuts is not just a policy debate," said one expert. "It's a matter of survival."
Apr 19, 2024
As worldwide government officials, civil society groups, and activists prepare to head to Ottawa, Canada for the fourth session of Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, climate advocates urged attendees to keep in mind the new findings of scientists who showed Thursday that plastic production—not waste—is the main driver of the synthetic substances' planet-heating emissions.
The federally funded Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California released a paper showing that the greenhouse gas emissions of the plastics industry are equivalent to those of about 600 coal-fired power plants and are four times higher than those of the airline sector.
Lobbyists for the plastics industry, along with countries that are home to the world's biggest fossil fuel polluters, have pushed for a plastics treaty that centers waste management and a "circular economy" in which waste plastic is used indefinitely to produce new synthetic products.
But the Lawrence Berkeley scientists found that 75% of the greenhouse gas emissions caused by plastics are released before the plastic compounds are even created by the polymerization process.
"Plastics' impact on the climate starts with extraction," said the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) in a policy brief on the lab's findings. "To fully capture, measure, evaluate, and address the impacts of plastic pollution, assessment, and regulatory controls must consider the complete lifecycle, beginning with extraction."
According to Lawrence Berkeley's research, if plastic production remains at its current level, it could burn through roughly one-fifth the planet's remaining carbon budget, pushing the Earth closer to planetary heating that exceeds 1.5°C.
"To avoid breaching the 1.5°C limit set by the Paris [climate] agreement," said GAIA, "primary plastic production must decrease by at least 12% to 17% per year, starting in 2024."
To achieve that goal, said the Center for Financial Accountability on Thursday, fossil fuel-producing countries must stop treating the Global Plastics Treaty "as a waste management treaty."
"While global leaders are trying to negotiate a solution to the plastic crisis, the petrochemical industry is investing billions of dollars in making the problem rapidly worse," said GAIA science and policy director Neil Tangri, a senior fellow at University of California, Berkeley. "We need a global agreement to stop this cancerous growth, bring down plastic production, and usher in a world with less plastic and less pollution."
At the third session of the the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3) last year, 143 plastics industry lobbyists registered to attend, prompting advocates to call for their exclusion from future summits.
On Sunday, ahead of the meetings set to take place from April 23-29, the Break Free From Plastic movement is planning to march through Ottawa, to demand "strong conflict of interest policies that protect the treaty negotiations and its implementation from the vested interests of industries that are profiting" from the growing plastic pollution crisis.
The campaigners will also demand a negotiation process that respects the rights of Indigenous people, a treaty that supports "non-toxic reuse systems" and rejects a "circular economy" model, and limiting and reducing plastic production a "non-negotiable requirement to end plastic pollution."
Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, a co-author of GAIA's policy brief and a research fellow at Siliman University in the Philippines, said the climate impacts that have already hit his country illustrate the need for a strong Global Plastics Treaty.
"The Philippines is on the frontlines of both climate change and plastic pollution," said Emmanuel. "Heatwaves, powerful typhoons, and flooding are getting worse, and the petrochemical industry has displaced our traditional systems with mountains of plastic that poison our communities."
"Whether the treaty includes plastic production cuts is not just a policy debate," he added. "It's a matter of survival."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular