The best reason that we don't need CPSIA

Of course, there are plenty of reasons that we don't need the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, but the best one just occurred today.

As part of its commitment to protecting the safety of children, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced today that Mattel Inc., of El Segundo, Calif. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Fisher-Price Inc., of East Aurora, N.Y. have agreed to pay a $2.3 million civil penalty for violating the federal lead paint ban.

This is the biggest fine EVER ASSESSED by the agency for CPSC regulated product violations.

Anti-CPSIA activist Rick Woldenberg and others have been saying for awhile that the lion's share of violations with children's products have to do with lead in paint. And, somehow, even though CPSIA is now on the books, clearly this particular action derived from a violation of a 30-year-old federal law. In 1978, a federal ban was put in place which prohibited toys and other children's articles from having more than 0.06 percent lead (by weight) in paints or surface coatings. In 2007, about 95 Mattel and Fisher-Price toy models were determined to have exceeded this limit.

Many small toymakers believe that Mattel was working behind the scenes to get CPSIA passed, as its extreme regulations would damage its smaller competitors. While it is difficult to prove such a thing, I do know that regulation ALWAYS favors the big guys.

In any event, Mattel got smacked down, and CPSIA was not needed. Nor, would it have been needed in the case of Jarnell Brown, the poster child for the law. The deadly lead charm that he ingested in February, 2006 was also in violation of the 1978 law.

We know that off-the-record CPSC despises CPSIA. Was this enforcement action done at this particular time to prove that the law is not needed?