An interesting debate has been going on inside the agency over an issue that many people outside the agency might think is merely semantics. The issue is when the agency is warning the public about a product, why do we insist on calling that warning a recall? A recall suggests to most people that some concrete corrective action will be taken—the options the statute gives us for corrective action are repair, replacement or refund. However, a warning involves none of these. In one recent action, we put out a unilateral warning to the public about a product but called that warning a recall. In another, we negotiated a voluntary “recall” of a product that consisted of allowing consumers to contact the company to get a warning label, if they wish to have one.
In the first instance, involving falling stadium light poles, we issued a “recall to repair.” However, as the last paragraph of the press release notes, the owner of the light pole is advised to have the repair done themselves since the company is out of business—in other words, no recall at all. My concern is that the use of the term “recall” suggests that someone out there—presumably the company selling the product—has the responsibility for correcting the problem. In the light pole case, this was not true and people could well have been confused or mislead by our press release.
In the second case, we faced a hazard—babies strangling when products with cords are placed too close to a crib—that exists across product lines. That hazard is not unique to a particular product. Tragically, two infants recently died when they strangled on the cords of a popular video monitor. In response to these deaths, the agency undertook discussions with the company about the appropriate way to address this risk. The company eventually agreed to issue a “recall” to, among other things, provide consumers with a warning label that could be affixed to the product. It is my understanding that very few consumers have taken advange of this “recall” and that a number who, upon hearing of a recall affecting their product and believing that there was some electrical or mechanical defect with the product, became quite annoyed when they learned that the recall was to give them the opportunity to get a warning label. I wonder whether consumers would be better served by a thoughtful, aggressive educational campaign about the dangers of cords in a nursery rather than a “recall” of a specific product for a “remedy” that is of questionable value.
The reason I was given for labeling everything involving a specific product as a recall is that this is the only way to get media attention—unless we call it a recall, no one will pay attention to us. I question that premise. I did a quick survey of some reporters who assured me that they were quite capable of parsing through our press releases and making their own decisions about what to cover and that our labels did not impact that process. But for those owners of defective stadium light poles for whom the recall has no meaning and for those consumers rightly annoyed by a government recall so that they can get a label, they have to wonder is this the best that the government they are paying for can do.
Conversations with Consumers 
How Low Can We Go?
Published February 6, 2011 Certification , Children's Products , Comment Request , Consumer Product Safety , CPSC , CPSIA , Lead , Risk Analysis , Small Business , Testing 2 CommentsWe have another big CPSIA decision looming on the horizon and therefore need your input and participation.
CPSIA provides that, as of August 14, 2011, children’s products may not contain more than 100 parts per million (ppm) of lead unless the Commission determines that such a limit is not technologically feasible. The Commission may make this determination only after notice and a hearing and after analyzing the public health protections associated with substantially reducing lead in children’s products.
A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, February 16th. In order for me to act from an educated perspective, I need the evidence and data the public supplies, along with staff analysis. I invite you to speak up and tell us how this lower lead limit will effect you. For details about participating, please refer to the Federal Register notice. The deadline to sign up to present your remarks in person is February 10th. You may also submit written comments and watch on webcast.
Last July, we solicited comments and information about manufacturers’ ability to meet the 100 ppm standard. Some commenters stated that source materials, including recycled materials for metal alloys, cannot comply consistently due to the variability of the materials and that plastics could comply only if virgin plastics are used. We heard about significant variability among test results due to variations in testing methodology and procedures. Several people stated there were not demonstrable health effects reducing lead limits from 300 ppm to 100 ppm in light of the relative inaccessibility of lead that is bound in plastic or metal. Others said there are children’s products in the market now that meet the 100 ppm lead limit, so that it is not only possible, but essential for public health to meet the lowest levels feasible.
The Federal Register notice outlines issues where staff is seeking new or additional information. Questions that are of particular interest to me include:
Before we vote to regulate, it is critically important that the Commission understand the practical and safety implications of lowering the lead levels in children’s products. We need your input so we can make an informed decision.