Protecting Consumers...The future of the Consumer Products Safety Commission
Domonique Worship - 2007 Shane McGee Foundation Memorial Scholarship Winner
Lately it seems that you can’t turn on the news without hearing about a product recall. From power tools to children’s toys to household appliances, consumer product recalls have been particularly prevalent as of late. In fact, over 7 million children’s toys, all manufactured in China, have been recalled in the last six months due to lead poisoning hazards. Additionally, millions of other products have been recalled in 2007 due to fire and choking hazards, among other risks. These frequent recalls have left many wondering who is behind all of these unsafe products, and what these recalls mean for the consuming public.
The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), established by Congress in 1972, is responsible for ensuring the safety of consumer products. With a jurisdiction of over 15,000 types of products, the commission is “committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose…unreasonable risks of serious injury or death.” Toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals are just a few of the thousands of products for which the commission is responsible. The agency has been successful thus far, as there has been a thirty percent decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products since its inception in 1972 (“About CPSC”). Amid dramatic budget cuts and staff changes in recent years, however, the effectiveness of the agency has been called into question.
Under the administration of President Bush, the CPSC has undergone major budget cuts. With a budget of only $62 million, the agency is responsible for an industry that sells $1.4 trillion in products each year. According to Eric Lipton of the New York Times, the agency’s product testing lab reflects its budget constraints. A magnifying glass and mechanical stop watch are among some of the outdated lab equipment used by employees to test products for hazards. Employees are also among the casualties of the budget cuts. The agency, which once employed over 1,000 inspectors, is currently at an all-time low of 420 employees (Lipton). The agency is finding it increasingly difficult to operate efficiently with such limited resources. According to Commissioner Thomas Moore, the damage done by the Bush administration is extensive:
Two years of significant staffing cuts and other resource reductions have limited the Commission’s ability to carry out its mission and have left the agency at a point where it is now doing only what is absolutely necessary for it to do and little else…Many employees at the agency are looking for other jobs because they have no confidence the agency will continue to exist (or will exist in any meaningful form) for many more years. The clear signal from the administration is that consumer protection is just not that important (“CPSC's Thomas Moore”).
In addition to the damage brought about by budget cuts, controversy has been raised regarding a number of President Bush’s staff appointments. In March of this year, Bush nominated Michael Baroody to be the newest chairman of the CPSC. Baroody also happens to be the Executive Vice President of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), one of the largest trade organizations in the country. This anti-consumer organization opposes strict product safety regulations. Baroody’s position as senior lobbyist for NAM did not sit well with many members of Congress. In response to the nomination, Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor pointed out that Mr. Baroody “has spent his professional career representing the interests of manufacturers over consumers…”. California Senator and Commerce Committee member Barbara Boxer voiced similar concerns, stating “I intend to give his nomination thorough scrutiny… Here was a golden opportunity to put a true champion of consumers onto a very important commission, and instead President Bush selected someone who represents the special interests. This administration seems incapable of doing anything in the public interest” (Enoch).
Pryor and Boxer are just two of the many Democratic Senators who voiced their disapproval of Bush’s nomination for the position. By May, it had become exceedingly clear that Baroody would not gain the necessary approval of the Senate Commerce Committee. On May 23, 2007, Baroody officially withdrew his nomination.
The powers of the agency were severely limited with only two chairmen. Without a third commissioner, CPSC could not “order mandatory recalls, adopt rules, or assess civil penalties”. In order to temporarily rectify this handicap, President Bush signed an amendment to a homeland security bill on August 4, 2007. The amendment allows the commission, with only two commissioners, to meet and take action for the next six months (Lester).
If the budget cuts and dramatic staff changes weren’t enough to grab the attention of Congress, the recent rash of product recalls has certainly done the trick. On September 12, 2007, Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor introduced the CPSC Reform Act of 2007. The bill was described by Hawaii Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation as a “comprehensive and aggressive reauthorization bill designed to revitalize the Commission and improve consumer safety” (Senate Committee). If approved, the bill will allow for the following improvements:
- Official reauthorization of the commission for the next seven years (an action which hasn’t been done since 1990)
- Authorization of a budget of $80 million for 2009, increasing by 10% per year and culminating at $141.7 million in 2015
- Approval of an additional $20 million in 2009 and 2010 for the repair, re-equipping, and upgrading of the CPSC’s testing facilities
- Expansion of the Commission to at least 500 full-time employees within the first 5 years
In addition to these improvements for the CPSC, the Act would also strengthen consumer products safety laws. The bill calls for tougher punishments for violators of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), increasing fines and making it possible for violators of the CPSA to be prosecuted and imprisoned. Furthermore, if approved, the CPSC Reform Act would ban the use of lead in children’s products, as well as establish a maximum trace amount of lead permissible in these products (Senate Committee).
The future of the Consumer Product Safety Commission looks much brighter with the CPSC Reform Act in the picture. The Act may be the most valuable piece of legislation this agency has seen in nearly a decade. The addition of much-needed funds and staff seem to be exactly what the agency needs to get back on its feet. Approval of the CPSC Reform Act will be the first step toward restoring this agency to its rightful duty of protecting the American consuming public.
Bibliography:
