How the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 2008 Protects Children from Consuming Harmful Produc

1 How the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 2008 Protects Children from Consuming Harmful Products The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 2008 (CPSIA) defines the new testing, documentation, safety standards, and level of substances on consumer goods. The law facilitates the amendment and enhancement of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSA); thus, strengthening its enforcement and regulatory authority. The CPSIA defined new safety standards that emphasized children's products, including the criteria for lead contents and phthalates (CRS Report, 2009). Also, the law focused on the testing and certification standards for children’s products.

The CPSIA considers any individual below the age of 12 years old to be a child.

However, over the past years, various health issues associated with the safety and quality of foods still prevalent amongst consumers and children below 12 years old. For instance, in the case of was the case in Brady v. Calsol, Inc. [2016], the plaintiffs, Ernest Brady and David Gibbs were diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia that resulted from their exposure to SafetyKleen 105 Solvent during their employment.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

2

The issues may have had several cases of exemptions to the CPSIA standards compliance. Moreover, some entities may dispute the interpretation of CPSIA standards by the CPSC, and various small businesses may also not observe the law to the latter. Thus, this paper analyzes whether the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 has adequately protected children from consuming harmful products.

The CPSIA regulates the quality of consumer products, especially for those aged 12 years and below. The law provides that every manufacturer, importer, distributor, or seller must ensure that their products meet the applicable safety standards and CPSC (CRS Report, 2009). The law also restricts these entities from dealing in consumer products that the government has banned due to hazardous nature. The CPSIA allows the CPSC to inspect all domestic facilities that manufacture any consumer product and the various channels that their finished products follow.

Any individual who declines to give access to the CPSC inspection resists the law and may face the appropriate charges stated by the CPSIA. The law ensures regular surveillance of consumer products and liaises with other bodies, such as the Federal agencies, conducting its duties to ensure consumers' protection from the entry of harmful effects into the U.S. Moreover, the law demands that any manufacturers, retailers, importers, and distributors that realize a safety issue with the consumer product should report to the CPSC—the Commission can then decide to impose a recall or ban on such products.

The CPSIA defines new consumer products and new standards for testing and documentation that every product manufacturer should conform to. In its protection of the children from harmful product consumption, the CPSIA has provided, in its section (a) (2), that the permissible lead level in children's products, those aged 12 years and below, must be lowered regularly to ensure the health and safety of the children (CRS Report, 2009). Concerning the

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

3

CPSIA lead level regulations, the law will not impact the components of children’s products that are inaccessible. The CPSIA’s requirements also include the standards for various electronic devices that manufacturers are likely to utilize. The technology must be realistic and ensures minimum exposure of harmful substances, such as lead, in the electronic devices—all manufacturers must-have safety certification from an accredited third-party laboratory for all children's consumer products. The laboratories must also obtain their accreditation requirements from the CPSC, keeping a list of all the certified laboratories. From section 108 of the CPSIA, the law imposes a ban on three toxic phthalates; these are chemical plasticizers exposed to children through toys and other products.

The CPSIA implementation of the safety standards to meet the United States' anticipated roles has faced some challenges due to various law controversies. The Commission does not have the power to suspend the safety standards or delay it and has caused it to lose its effectiveness over time (CRS Report, 2009). The CPSIA implementation also exempts children's consumer products' inaccessible components—such parts have no physical exposure to, but not due to sealed covering or casing. The performance also involves a regular review of the lead limit in products and reduces the permissible level after a maximum of five years. The Commission has also outlined its list of several lead-free materials that manufacturers should utilize, alongside a Statement of Commission Enforcement Policy on lead limits. Such materials include valuable metals and natural fiber textiles. The CPSC has also defined various manufacturing apparel, shoes, jewelry, school supplies, and books.

The CPSIA has significantly contributed to protecting children from possible hazardous products from several manufacturers, importers, retailers, and distributors. However, the law still experiences several weaknesses that result in their failure to achieve their pre-established duties

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

4

of promoting consumers' safety through products that meet their standards. In O'Neil v. Crane Co. [2012], the plaintiff sued the defendants, Crane Co. and Warren Pumps LLC, following an allegedly asbestos-caused death came from external insulation, internal gaskets, and packing.

Third parties made the materials, who added them to the valves and pumps after Crane Co. and Warren Pump LLC had sold them. The court ruling favored the defendants and not the plaintiff, O’Neil, who was the consumer. The court argued that Crane Co. and Warren Pump LLC did not owe O’Neil any duty of care and ruled a nonsuit against him (O’Neil v. Crane Co. [2012]). From this, we realize the CPSIA weaknesses in its inability to ensure the consumer product reached the consumer safely. Also, the CPSIA could not guarantee that the plaintiff gets justice for the asbestos poisoning that resulted from the noncompliance of the safety standards.

The CPSIA weakness is also evident in Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp. [2010]. The law requires any manufacturer, seller, importer, or distributor to report to the Commission of any possible health hazard that may compromise an individual's safety. In this case, Larry Stewart was diagnosed with mesothelioma following his employment as a plumber, working with Union Carbide (Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp. [2010]). Stewart claimed that Union Carbide was reluctant to warn him of the possible health hazard, and the company had shown negligence for the same matter. Thus, the CPSIA failed to prevent Union Carbide from delivering hazardous products to consumers.

The weaknesses of the CPSIA causes failure in their effort to achieve the intended roles of promoting safety in consumer products, especially for those that children are the primary consumers. Due to this failure, many manufacturers and other intermediaries in the consumer products route to children are not likely to conform to the CPSIA provisions, such as lead and phthalate contents, testing, and certification requirements. Thus, children who consume such

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

5

products have more risk of exposure to hazardous components such as lead and phthalates in toys. The CPSIA may also fail due to the uncertainties regarding its exemptions to standards’ compliance that causes various disputes concerning the CPSC standards interpretation.

Manufacturers that realize that the CPSIA is falling in its primary roles may deliberately utilize inappropriate criteria during the packaging, promotion, or advertising, rendering the products harmful for children of 12 years of age and below. Besides, some manufacturers may disregard the age determination guidelines that protect children from utilizing inappropriate products for them. Due to these, the children consumers will get harmed because of the CPSIA failures.

The intentions and roles of the CPSIA are crucial for safeguarding the health of children consumers from potential harmful components of manufactured products such as lead, phthalates, and asbestos. Due to this, the CPSC should intensify its mission to ensure more effectiveness. The Commission should limit the standards exemptions to reduce the level of controversies and disputes regarding its interpretation of the standards. Amendment of the Consumer Products Safety Act can enhance the relief for various small businesses that have reported the disproportionation concerning their inventory loss (CRS Report, 2009). According to the CRS Report (2009), the CPSIA should consider a conditional stay of the ban on children's products' lead content. Putting more strict safety rules and standards for the children's protection will also minimize the Commission's failure. During various trials concerning noncompliance with the CPSIA standards, the law should facilitate justice for the plaintiffs, unlike in O'Neil v.

Crane Co. [2012] and Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp. [2010]. In the two cases, the plaintiffs did not receive the appropriate justice.

Since the enactment of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 2008, there have been several controversies and disputes regarding whether the law has adequately protected

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

6

children from consuming harmful products. The law’s primary focus has been on the testing and certification standards for children’s products. CPSIA regulates consumer products' quality through its provision that requires all manufacturers, importers, distributors, or sellers to ensure that their products meet the applicable safety standards and CPSC. Also, it restricts such entities from providing consumer products that the government has banned due to their hazardous nature.

The CPSIA has also defined the permissible levels of lead, phthalates, and other harmful components, such as asbestos, in consumer products. It regularly reviews and reduces these acceptable levels to ensure they are minimum.

Despite the new standards by the CPSIA, the law has various weaknesses that have resulted in its failure over time. For instance, the law is experiencing a loss in its effectiveness over time due to its lack of authority to suspend the safety standards, and it can also not delay them. The law has also failed to ensure absolute compliance with the safety standards, causing several plaintiffs not to get the necessary justice following various manufacturers’ noncompliance. The CPSIA may ensure more effectiveness by reviewing the new standards exemptions to prevent small businesses from raising specific complaints or declining to conform to the standards. More strict regulations to protect children, consumers from harmful products.

The bans on lead and phthalates contents on children's effects may also be conditional.

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT References Brady v. Calsol, Inc., 10/30/2015, B262028 - CA Court of Appeal.

CRS Report. (2009). Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA): New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues. Everycrsreport.com. Retrieved 4 December 2020, from https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R40527.html.

O'Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, 355.

Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 23, 29.

7