OCR Text |
Show Page 6 The Utah Independent December 9, Continued from . pap RALPH NADER AND CONSUMERISM 1 will somehow solve all their Haythe, Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement of the Consumer Product Safety Commission boasted to her that his agency has considerable clout, and in fact it is the most power legislative agency that Congress has ever attempted .to create. Winston day-to-d- ay problems: the local service station that fails to properly fix their salesman car; the aluminum-sidin- g on who gets a mortgage their house; the dishonest used-c- ar salesman; the in the apslick pliance store. "The new consumer agency will havq no immediate Impact on any of consumer problems. these Rather, the CPA is intended to be a salt seed in the huge billowing cloud of federal bureaucracy, not an baiter-and-switc- day-to-d- her for consumer com- plaints.' The Consumer Protection Agency bill in Conran into a series of road-bloc- ks gress. Meanwhile, the Consumer Product Safety Act was pushed through. The Consumer Product Safety Act 73 now Public Law was cleared by Congress in October of 1972. However, it was not until May of 1973 that President Nixon got around to appointing four of the Commission. Under Public Law the Commission was given the power to: 92-5- five-mem- ber i 92-5- 73, Conduct safety studies and tests of consumer products. Promulgate mandatory safety standards relating to the performance, composition, content, design, construction, finish, packaging, and informative labelling of consumer products. Prohibit a manufacturer from stockpiling a product before a safety standard becomes effective. Require manufacturers to furnish notice and description of any new consumer product to the Commission before marketing it. Impose civil penalities of from $2,000 to a maximum of $500,000 upon violators; and, seek criminal penalties of $50,000 fine or a year in prison or both if a person continues to violate Commission regulations after being informed or non-complia- nce. Ban a consumer product if the Commission determines that the product presents an unreasonable hazard and that no safety standard would adequately protect the public from that hazard. term unreasonable hazard conveniently left undefined inP.L. The is 92-5- 73, leaving it to the Chairman and the Commission to define it. Lillian R. Boehme in an article entitled Safetycrats, which appeared in the January OPINION, M. the Bradley Import Company. What was the companys crime? Its dolls had pins to hold the elaborate costumes in place. Three U.S. marshals confiscated nearly right at the very peak of 80,000 dolls the Christmas order season. The case came before Judge Louis C. Bechtle in September 1974. He found the government on every point. against EDICTS The seized dolls were returned to the It was the Consumer Product Safety Bradley Import Company. Meanwhile, the Commission which gave us child-pro- of president of the company estimated that medicine bottles which any child can open the company had lost $600,000 in sales. but which the elderly and the Further, he had been put to heavy legal have great difficulty opening. expenses to defend his company. And, had In his YOUVE A RIGHT TO know newshe not been able to float an $80,000 loan, letter of April 1976, former Congressman his company would have been forced into John R. Rarick had this to say: bankruptcy. An article in the January 10, 1976, that "Big Mother government forerissue of HUMAN EVENTS quoted Congressmaddening, unner to Big Brother government man John M. Ashbrook as saying, Even has struck again. This time it plans when the agencys decision has been to make it more difficult for you to erroneous, there is no redress for the matches that is. strike "It doesn't matter that the little injured party. The doctrine of sovereign paper matches have been around since immunity prevents legal action to collect and American the turn of the century the damages sustained. consumers seem to have gotten along Ashbrook cited the specific example quite well with them in their present of the Marlin Toy Products Co., a small form- - The CPSC says they have to go. business with 85 employees in Horiconj All 9 million cases which we use each be if the will to have changed year Wis., that was literally driven into Safetycrat's new rules go Into effect." bankruptcy when the Consumer Product The paper matches are to be replaced Safety Commission erroneously listed two by matches which are only marginally of its products on the banned products flammable. The newly proposed book list and then issued a retraction only matches will be required to go out within after the passage of eight months. 15 seconds after they are lighted. And they R APPROACH TO GUN will not be allowed to burn more than half CONTROL DEFEATED an inch from the stem. This new bureaucrat-On June 22, 1974, a small Chicago-bas- ed decreed safety measure should ee anti-globby called the prove as frustrating to individuals as the for Handgun Control petitioned the medicine bottle. However, though affecting practically Consumer Product Safety Commissionfor every person in this country, these two a rule to ban the sale, distribution, and examples are minor compared to what manufacture of handgun bullets as a the Consumer Product Safety Commission hazardous substance. The Chicago groups petition called has done already to some companies in the for classifying handgun ammunition as interest of consumer safety. In a press release of March 20, 1976, hazardous under the Hazardous SubCongressman John B. Conlan stated: The stances Act of 1960 and the Consumer power to regulate is the power to destroy, Product Safety Act of 1972. It asked for and some federal agencies are unjustly, adoption of a rule banning the sale of shutting down businesses and harassing handgun ammunition except to police, the citizens with exorbitant fines and absurd military, licensed security guards and regulations. The horror stories involving licensed pistol clubs. federal regulatory agencies are endless. The CPSC denied the petition in Conlan then went on to say that in September 1974. Thereupon the anti-g1973, the Consumer Product Safety Comgroup filed suit against the Consumer mission rashly banned spray glue from the Product Safety Commission and on market, then lifted its ban after research December 19 of that year the U.S. District proved the glue quite harmless. However, Court for the District of Columbia ordered the 3M Company lost $3 million in sales, the CPSC to commence consideration EXAMPLES OF "CONSUMERIST ay ombudsman A The Paper That Dares To Take Stand 1976 1974 issue of AMERICAN related how Ronald Eisenberg, not-so-eld- erly over-regulati- ng, BACK-DOO- un Com-.mitt- non-child-pr- oof un press spokesman for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, told her that the and the Woodhill Chemical invoked the hazardous sub- Sales of the plaintiffs proposal. all Corporation took an $80,000 loss Suddenly the CPSC found itself thrust stances clause of its authority because because CPSC failed to do its homework into a position of assuming responsibility doing so enables it to go after the before moving in on those companies. over the vastly complex and controversial retailer, too. James in his J. area of federal gun control. Therefore, Miss Boehme also reported that on a column which Kilpatrick in the syndicated appeared August 16, following the court ruling, the Consumer nationwide radio interview Chairman of INDIANAPOLIS the STAR proissue 1975, Product Safety Commission published the Richard O. Simpson was asked what his vided another example of how CPSC regu- proposed bullet ban in the FEDERAL Commission would do if it failed to re- lations almost ruined a REGISTER and solicited public opinion for company: ceive the desired degree of voluntary In 1962, the Bradley Import Company sixty days. compliance with its safety standards of Los In testifying before a congressional Angeles began importing ornaand product bans. In replying Simpson demental, decorative dolls from Japan, and committee on this subject, Congressman clared: Well bloat the Agency . jails. from Korea. These dolls were never Symms revealed: Former Congressman John Schmitz later intended for use by children as toys. They in his newsletter of January 31, 1974, "The Commission informs me that were sold in not shops gift toy over shops 100,000 letters on the bullet quoted Chairman Simpson as having stated: and retailed at to ban have $75. up prices already been read, of which "If a company violates our statute, we will not concern ourselves with its middle-lev- el executives; we will As soon as Congress created the Con- about 200 expressed support for such action. In other words, less than of one per cent of those who wrote the Commission favored the proposed ban." actually sumer Product Safety Commission, the Commission promulgated regulations govput the chief executive officer in jail. erning banned toys and other banned Once we do put a top executive bearticles intended for use by children. hind bars, I am sure that we will On April 22, 1975, in discussing the a much higher degree of comUnder these regulations, no pins could get pliance from the other companies." be used in any doll, stuffed, animal, huge volume of letters protesting the bullet ban, Congressman Symms said: What incredible arrogance on the part or other similar toy. A many of the letters I received of only one of the thousands of federal According to columnist Kilpatrick, on weregreat from people who do not even own July 9, 1974, without preliminary hearing regulators! but who are nevertheless extremely In her article, Miss Boehme stated that or warning, the CPSC swooped down upon guns, concerned about what they consider to two-tent- hs |