Conversations with Consumers

We have posted more than a thousand complaints so far to the public database since it was launched two months ago.  At this rate we will have more than 6,000 reports after a year of operation.  It’s a fact that the agency investigates less than 10% of the reports that are received, and there is no obligation to publish the results of those investigations, unless that investigation results in a recall.  That raises the question of the validity of the overwhelming majority of the reports on the database.  Some may well be valid and others are not.  We include at the bottom of the database pages a disclaimer that the CPSC does not attest to the accuracy of the database’s information. So what stock should consumers place in the information in the public database? 

To try to answer this question, I did a search of the generic category for “shoes,” then focused on toning shoes   I found reports of people complaining of sore muscles from walking in toning shoes.  I found people complaining of tripping, apparently because of these shoes.  I found a complaint of sore feet after working out in these shoes.  

My concern, and the reason I raise this example, is that it would be most unfortunate if these complaints were to divert the agency’s attention away from high priority hazards to deal with things like toning shoes.  I hope that the agency has sufficient discipline to keep its focus on truly unsafe products.  If we do not have that discipline, then high-heel wearers beware:  We all know that 4-inch spikes are dangerous and should be banned.

The Wichita Eagle also posted my op ed piece outlining my concerns with the consumer product database.  I am worried that we could be giving the public misleading information, with the government stamp of approval. I applaud Representative Pompeo for taking a leadership role on this issue. The text of my opinion piece is below:

“Put Accuracy to Work for Consumers”

Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Wichita, has been receiving criticism for raising questions about a well-intentioned but flawed federal program to establish a public database of safety complaints about consumer products. However, he is doing exactly what a member of Congress should do — raising questions about how best to use tax dollars and whether scarce public resources should be used for such a poorly conceived program.

Though the objectives of this program are laudable — to provide consumers with reliable information about the safety of the products they buy — one can and should question the way in which this program is being implemented.

I have served as a commissioner at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission for the past five years and have closely watched the development of this database. I can attest that this program may well mislead consumers to their detriment. Here are some of my concerns:

* Instead of limiting the people who can post a complaint to those with firsthand information about the incident, anyone can post a complaint — trial lawyers trolling for clients, unscrupulous competitors looking to damage a business or its reputation, or the gossiping neighbor down the street who heard the story “through the grapevine.”

* Instead of requiring those who submit complaints to at least put the location of the incident or the model number of the product, complaints could be filled with only sketchy information that is of little use to anyone.

* Instead of verifying that the information posted to the database is correct, the commission is under no obligation to confirm the accuracy of information submitted, even when the accuracy is challenged. And while it is clear the commission will not investigate most of these claims, when we do, we are not planning on telling consumers the results. It appears that once the complaint is there, accurate or not, it’s there indefinitely.

We had the chance to make the database a helpful tool for consumers, but instead it will potentially become just another sinkhole for complaints, but with the apparent “seal of approval” that comes from being on a federal government website. We had the opportunity to get it right but instead spent millions of taxpayer dollars to construct something that could well mislead consumers and undermine our safety mission. Consumer safety is not advanced by such a result.

To be clear, the intent is not to keep reports from consumers; the goal is to give consumers accurate reports that can be safely relied upon in their decisions.

Today the Wichita Eagle published the letter to the editor that I sent defending Congressman Pompeo’s move to halt funding for the consumer product database. Here’s the letter, in case you missed it.  

“Give consumers accurate data”

The commentary “Pompeo’s cut puts children’s safety at risk” (March 8 Opinion) could not have been further from the truth. Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Wichita, is doing exactly what he should do — question spending scarce public resources on poorly conceived programs that may well mislead consumers to their detriment.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission public database was launched with a “punch list” of more than 120 fixes still needed, and the list grows. It is not ready for consumers to rely on.

The commentary compared the database to warnings on cigarette packs. Really? Science tells us what carcinogens are in cigarettes. The commission will investigate less than 10 percent of the reports on this database, and those results will not necessarily be made public. A sketchy warning, at best.

Pompeo rightly insists on spending the money on a database that gives consumers accurate reports that can be safely relied upon in their decisions, not a mishmash of “junk science.” We should give consumers “news they can use,” not just a sinkhole for complaints.

We all want a database that works for consumers, not confuses them. The commission is supposed to address defective products, not produce them.

NANCY A. NORD

Commissioner

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Bethesda, Md.

Come March 11, reports filed with the CPSC from virtually any source will be logged into a database that will become available for public viewing on April 1 (no comment!).  There has been much press coverage of what a boon to consumers this information will be.  What is remarkable is that no one in the media has made the effort to look behind the curtain at how it is really working.  The fact is, this show is not ready for prime time.  

For the last six weeks, the dress rehearsal for the database launch has been running into issues and questions that have been mounting up.  Yes, that’s the purpose of a soft launch, to discover AND address glitches.  Problem is, the list of concerns that have been identified (and it’s well over 100 and still counting) will take, at a minimum weeks, and in some cases months, to iron out.  Problems range from technical to conceptual. For example:

·        Licensees or retailers may be referenced in a report, but because of the database set-up, they cannot respond to the report and would not even be put on notice.

·        Currently our system allows us to send only one automatic electronic notification through the business portal to a manufacturer or importer.  Anyone else who should receive it gets it sent manually and if sent by “snail mail,” that will eat up much of the 10 day turnaround time allotted for manufacturers’ responses.

This is hardly an exhaustive list.  Yet we are rushing to get this up and going, I suspect, in part, to beat any Congressional action to delay it until these issues can be resolved. 

Interestingly, concerning another agency’s online electronic reporting platform, EPA just announced that “following conversations with industry and others, and in the interest of providing high quality data to the public…” it is extending the online launch of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program until later this year. This extension will “allow EPA to further test the system.”

Gee, what a novel idea.  I don’t see why CPSC couldn’t do that and instead insists on launching a defective consumer product.  CPSC is supposed to address defective products, not produce them.

Throughout the debate on the public database, the majority referred to Congressional intent to support a number of their dubious policy decisions. Indeed. What kinds of things indicate Congressional intent?

How about a letter received last week by the agency from Representative Joe Barton, one of the principal Members of Congress involved in drafting the CPSIA.   While during the debate the majority disavowed knowledge of his letter, Representative Barton stated emphatically that the majority’s interpretation of Congressional intent was wrong on a number of fronts.  In other words, the majority’s take on what Congress intended is not quite in sync with what some actual Members of Congress have to say.

 Here is Congressman Barton’s letter in full (Representative Barton Letter on Congressional Intent of Database). You read and you decide what was intended.