Shaw's Eco-Logic

Many will remember Ethel Rosenberg as one half of the infamous "Rosenbergs," the atomic spy couple executed in 1953 for passing our atomic secrets to the Russians. The Feds were very reluctant to execute Ethel, and leave her two sons orphans, so they gave her several opportunities to confess, and provide further details on the plot.

She refused, and forever would symbolize the triumph of blind ideology: Her undying loyalty to the glorious Soviet cause.

Today's Ethel Rosenberg award goes to...

Consumer Reports for their blind loyalty to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, and the flagrant distortions of the Fly-In/Rally of April 1st. Read their article, and note the dozens of unfavorable comments.

They are destroying their brand with this posture, and are apparently too stupid, or too ideological to care.

Here are Rick Woldenberg's comments...

The Rally against the CPSIA on April 1 in Washington was no April Fool's joke. Efforts to marginalize the clear message of the Rally will not work. The CPSIA is misguided and misconceived in its precautionary "guilty until proven innocent" design. The ill-effects on industry and the children's products market cannot be justified with vague assertions that the law solves some sort of public health emergency. The "emergency" does not exist.

Please note that you have made some serious mischaracterizations and factual errors in this "fact-checked" blog. First of all, you claim that the speakers were "industry lobbyists and representatives of large companies and of trade organizations". In fact, of the 20 Rally speakers (other than legislators), there were three speakers from trade organizations, namely the Presidents of the TIA, AAFA and NAM, and NO lobbyists. Every other speaker but one (the representative of Reckitt Benckiser) was from a small business or an individual. In other words, the Rally featured speakers from 16 small businesses or individuals, one large business, three representatives of industry organizations and no lobbyists. Your statement is misleading and untrue.

Second, you indicate that a "takeaway" of the meeting was that the problem was poor implementation of the CPSIA. In fact, that must be your opinion, but not the stated opinion of the speakers at the Rally. The message was clear and consistent among the Rally speakers that the problem is the law itself. Implementation was not the focus of these remarks. We were not pointing fingers at the CPSC either - but you are. In describing the Rally and then characterizing your opinion as the "takeaway", you suggest that we hold that view - which we do not.

Third, you mischaracterize the message of the scientists who appeared at the Rally, Dr. Barbara Beck, Dr. Rick Reiss and Dr. William Waddell. Each of these toxicologists reinforced the common wisdom quoted by Dr. Waddell: "The dose makes the poison." Dr. Beck clearly stated that we ingest more lead daily in our food than is likely ingested from use of many regulated children's products. You are welcome to review their remarks at our website www.AmendTheCPSIA.com. Again, you state your opinion as though it were a fact. This is misleading to your readers who trust your fact-checked blog for accuracy.

There are other, more minor errors or mischaracterizations, such as your assertion that some speaker claimed that the CPSIA applied to adult clothing (the President of the AAFA was the only speaker from the apparel industry and made no such claim), and your assertion that the 2007/8 recalls "injured and even killed children" (an analysis of recalls in this period from lead in children's products showed one death from swallowing a lead bangle on a bracelet, and one reported injury from lead-in-paint).

Finally, you also mischaracterize the remarks of the Rally speakers as endorsing YOUR view that Nancy Nord is at fault for the delays and failures to issue exemptions that you assert. I do not recall Ms. Nord's name or role being mentioned during any speech, and she was certainly not a focus of the day's events. Speaking for myself, I do not agree with your statement at all, and would observe that the data shows that Acting Chairman Nord and Comm. Moore have voted 2-0 in their last 23 decisions. It is hard to understand the reasons behind the finger pointing at Ms. Nord or at Republicans in general if the Commissioners are apparently acting in bipartisan unison. Is it because attacks on Ms. Nord make a nice diversion from an examination of the law itself?

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.

I would have thought that Consumer Reports would not have been as blindly ideological as PIRG and NRDC, but I was clearly wrong.