The CPSC staff is now collecting and cogitating on information about how phthalates—substances added as plasticizers to make plastics soft and pliable—are used to manufacture children’s toys and child care articles. This activity is part of the agency’s effort (perhaps its only effort?) to minimize the burdens of third party testing, as required by Congress in P.L. 112-28. If the agency can conclude that certain substances do not and cannot contain illegal phthalates, then it can determine that products made up of those substances do not need to be tested for phthalates.
The problem is that the way the agency is going about its inquiry is almost guaranteed to result in very little relief. And since phthalates testing is very costly, an illusory process that is structured to minimize any relief available does not reduce the testing burden Congress was trying to achieve, much less what responsible regulators should insist on. The problem with the phthalates inquiry is that the agency is requiring that stakeholders not only show that phthalates are not now being used in the manufacturing process, but also to show that it is impossible that they will be so used any time in the future, in any place in the world. In other words no matter how much real world data one supplies, it cannot proof the negative as is being asked by the CPSC staff. Although we all know the moon is not made of green cheese, who can say what will happen in the future.
The outcome of this inquiry is pretty clear. Certain predictable substances, such as natural wood and fibers, will eventually receive exclusions from testing (after how many years of costly and unnecessary testing?). The bulk of products that do not use phthalates but whose makers cannot now predict the future in the absolute terms required by the agency will not get relief. The agency will claim this as an accomplishment and close up shop on any real burden reduction.
I do not understand why the agency has taken the approach it has. A real and honest effort to understand where phthalates are used, where they are not and then address its compliance efforts at where they are used and its burden reduction efforts at where they are not would result in significant relief. Rather than ask stakeholders to prove a negative, they should ask stakeholders to help them understand where the agency should be looking for phthalates.
The response, no doubt, is that a collaborative approach does not guarantee that phthalates will not be added by some unscrupulous manufacturer at some point in the future. However testing relief does not relieve anyone of complying with the underlying phthalates prohibition. And the agency has plenty of tools to address that eventually if it were to occur. Because the phthalates prohibition must be complied with regardless of testing, the agency cannot say that its current constrained approach is required to be consistent with assuring compliance with the existing law. Denying testing relief to the vast majority of manufacturers who do not use phthalates because of some imagined future scenario which the agency can address should it occur does not carry out the spirit of the law Congress passed.