“Materially Inaccurate” Majority


During last week’s debate over the public database, my colleagues claimed the need to do an end run around a provision in the Consumer Product Safety Act known as section 6(b).  The majority’s official statement specifically  asserts that the database “is a dramatic and positive change from the current system (commonly known as ‘section 6(b) procedure’), where the Commission is required to consult with manufacturers before warning the public about critical product safety hazards, and seek their approval before releasing the name of the potentially dangerous item.”  The majority suggests that information cannot be released without approval of the manufacturer, but this is materially inaccurate.  Whether the majority lacks understanding how the law reads or intentionally seeks to confuse the issue, the result is the same: the public is misled. 

Section 6 (b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act states that before we release information that identifies a product or manufacturer, the agency must take reasonable steps to assure the accuracy of the information, including giving the manufacturer 15 days notice of a proposed release of information.  If we decide to release the information over the objection of the manufacturer, we must notify the manufacturer of our decision five days before our release.  In theory, the manufacturer then can go to court to block it.  In the last twenty years at the commission, we have released much information on countless occasions and I am aware of only two attempts to block release;  neither succeeded.  Additionally, if we determine that public safety warrants, we may release the information immediately without providing 15 day notice. 

The majority’s misstatements have now been picked up in the media where I have read several stories that make the inaccurate assertion that information will not be released without manufacturer approval.  For example, in a Bloomberg story last week, an incorrect statement, attributed to a fellow Commissioner, said  “The agency has been required to get company permission to make such information public. . .”. Though the publication may not be well-versed in our intricate laws, my fellow Commissioner should be.

Press reports misstating the law tend to be repeated as absolute fact.  Of course this example of turning fiction into fact is the same concern that has been expressed about the database itself.  Once information is published on a federally-sanctioned web site, it becomes “true” regardless of the actual facts.  The majority knows this.  Accidental or intentional, a misstatement is a misstatement nevertheless.  And nevertheless, it is now repeated as fact.   A bit more fact checking would do all of us good; most of all, the consumer.

2 Responses to ““Materially Inaccurate” Majority”

  1. 1 Sarah Natividad December 1, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    How does that saying go? A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth puts on its shoes?

    Soon as this database gets up and running, here’s what will happen. A “consumer” group will decide on a company it would like to target, preferably one with deep pockets. Within a week the database will have a bunch of worthless complaints about one of that company’s products. Within another couple of weeks there will be a news report or article about how horribly unsafe this product is, which will contain some paraphrase of “This product’s had 24 complaints on the CPSC database in the last month alone!” (I further predict that the number of complaints sparking the news story will be a 2-digit number.) Several expensive lawsuits will be filed against the company. Rick Woldenberg will post an “I told you so.” One of my Facebook friends who jumps on all these “child safety” stories will urge us all to check if we have this product and rant on about horrible corporate greed, and I’ll have to set her straight. And everybody else will continue using the product, because they long ago tuned out the shrill caterwauls of these grievance-mongerers.

    Remind me again how this is supposed to be a “victory” for consumer safety?

  2. 2 Jan McAleer November 30, 2010 at 8:58 am


    Thank you, as always, for raising the voice of sanity and reasonableness. It would be wonderful (and probably a jaw-dropping, knock-your-socks off moment) if more people would go beyond the “knee-jerk” level and take the time to investigate and think about the issues. Here’s hoping ….

    Sincerely, Jan McAleer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to my blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 976 other followers


RSS CPSC Breaking News & Recent Recalls

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Let’s keep the conversation going on Twitter. You can find me at @NancyNord.

Nancy's Photos

  • 90,641 visits

%d bloggers like this: