From today's Tribune:
www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-safety-magnets1-story,1,4110861.story
For non-subscribers, basically it relates the story of a boy who died from ingesting high-powered magnets which fell from a children's toy to the intention gutting of the department which regulates children's toys. He died of gunshot wound like injuries throughout his digestive system.
Inflammatory headline aside, obviously this is a department that Clinton could have returned to prominence during his time in office. What it does point to is the danger when many of our governmental positions are filled by those who are connected to and advocating for the very groups they are supposed to be regulating.
Daley and Bush seem to be the masters of hiring the fox to guard the hen house. It would seem to amount to a sort of treason.
Lest anyone feel like taking the common tack of blaming the victims, check out this excerpt from the article which made me think, "If we'll never be as thorough as these parents, will our kids be at risk?" (Probably not, since we aren't planning on buying very many toys, but the point stands--it could have been anyone...)
When Penny gave the Magnetix toys to Ben on his birthday that November, she recognized the plastic pieces posed a choking hazard to young children. So Kenny—at 20 months old, the baby of the family—was not allowed near the Magnetix sets and, whenever possible, was moved to another room when his older siblings played with them.
In addition, the Sweets set family rules about Magnetix: You could play with them only in the family room. The pieces always had to go back in the plastic container with the lid shut tightly.
In the 10 days their children played with the Magnetix toys in November 2005, Ken and Penny Sweet didn't find any stray, brightly colored plastic pieces.
Not knowing the history of problems with Magnetix, the Sweets were looking for the wrong thing.
Tragic story, but no, I don't think Ronald Reagan killed the boy from beyond the grave, that blame seems to go more to the designers of this toy that apparently falls apart way too easily and those responsible for ignoring the incidents brought to their attention about how dangerous that made them.
As for the federal agency that oversees recalls and consumer product safety... they do appear to be greatly overwhelmed and understaffed for such an endeavor. A quick look at their website and the bureaucratic limitations of their efforts become obvious. If you wanted to check your kid's christmas list for safety concerns... you're going to spend a lot of time searching for information that is in the public realm of knowledge but probably not yet investigated and verified by the bureaucrats to ensure they aren't unfairly tarnishing a company's image on their website. The random news of such events is probably unlikely to apply to what you're looking for either. Given that few politicians appear likely to be too sympathetic to the cause until deaths and serious injuries are occurring, I'm not sure what a good solution would be here, at least through the government.
What would seem far more logical is a consumer driven listing of dangerous products and reports of product related injuries and deaths. You'd have a staff of millions of parents who have a vested interest in letting people know when they encounter serious problems with their children's toys. It could operate much like a blog, with a new thread added for any particular toy, with a search engine that would allow parents to quickly and efficiently type in and find the toys their children are begging for that would pop up any and all information that consumers have provided on them with any death or serious injury information at the forefront as well as any additional information found from the CPSC and other product safety groups as well.
I don't know if something like this already exists or not, but if not, it might be a worthwhile venture. Interested?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Fair Enough. However, while I agree that citizen-led labors of love tend to out distance the effectiveness of either profit-driven or government pushed initiatives, sometimes it is necessary to provide basic information to regulate and educate the public.
There is where we could easily lower the "standard" unemployment rate while at the same time protecting our citizens--a tight government regulation office with very clear goals and procedures and enough work hours to handle every single complaint that comes in.
It seems like it wouldn't be too hard to design a system that sorts the "ITWONTWORK" complaints from the "This product has killed and will kill again" letters.
I'd still like to see a well-known consumer driven side kick. Instant notification of serious issues and defects that could save lives versus the government bureaucrats debating the effect it'll have on their campaign donations, or as you pointed out, appointed industry cronies to oversee the industries they were all-too-recently in bed with.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Well, I hate to pull the "Japan does it better" deal, but what they do there is fund private individuals to educate themselves as consumer advocates who basically do the same job that that agency is supposed to.
They are certified and in the event of a defective product from a pen that doesn't work to a consumer fatality, people report to the advocate in their area who then reports to the government agency with the action plan (recall, replacement, etc.)
It's a pretty good synergy of government regulation and good old fashion individual citizen work.
There are relatively few toy related deaths each year. Here's one report off the CDC website. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00050473.htm
This report states that there are over 5,000 accidental deaths of children under 14. That suggests that accidents from toys are among the least likely ways for children to die.
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton aside, banning bicycles would save far more lives than increasing the funding for the CPSC. It's not a question of whether more lives could be saved. They obviously could. But would even more lives be saved by spending those dollars somewhere else.
This is certainly apples and oranges, but the Tribune has a pattern recently of linking unrelated events:
http://www.wenalway.com/forum/index.php?topic=53.msg585#msg585
It seems that Reagan was actually a child-hating environmentalist.
It's not a question of whether more lives could be saved. They obviously could. But would even more lives be saved by spending those dollars somewhere else.
So did they? Spend the money saving lives somewhere else, I mean?
It seems that Reagan was actually a child-hating environmentalist.
That's in pretty poor taste.