At Forbes,
Richard Epstein writes on the same subject
I wrote on yesterday, while Walter Olson continues his
sterling coverage
here. In short, a "consumer product safety" bill that goes
into effect next week, supposedly protecting children from the
dangers of lead, is so overbroad and poorly targeted that it
could cause severe economic dislocation across a huge spectrum of
businesses small and large.
What Congress OUGHT to do is replace this terrible new law with a
much more simple law in the spirit of caveat emptor. It
could do the job well with just two basic clauses. The first
would, by a date certain (perhaps Jan. 1, 2011, to give
manufacturers time to comply) ban all NEW domestic manufacture of
any product intended for the regular use of a child 10 or under
with a lead content greater than x percent, with an express
permission for the CPSC to make individual product exceptions for
products it deems "entirely unlikely to result in ingestion or
direct absoprtion of lead" -- or somesuch language. This would
not apply to products produced before the start date, or to those
produced abroad.
For all those other products, a simple rule ought to be adopted:
Any foreign producer of such a product must certify that it meets
the same standards (with a ban of all products by that company if
any such certification is found to be fraudulent), AND the
retailer of any product not covered by the new-manufacture ban
should be required to attach a sticker or tag to each such item
that says: "WARNING: May contain lead. Ingestion may cause
serious health problems. Do not let children put in mouth!"
There. That's common sense. Unfortunately, it is sorely lacking
in Washington these days.
