Comments on: “Because We Said So” http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:56:55 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Mike A. http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/comment-page-1/#comment-433759 Mike A. Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:16:59 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=12278#comment-433759 Mark, Sorry for the late response. The holidays and everything. So, I will address one point that you have stated twice, so I can claim that I have indeed addressed at least one of your points. "Again: sugar has been documented to cause lots of health problems. If it were banned tomorrow, would it be justifiable to make that ban retroactive?" No it would not be. Sugar is an additive to foods. Foods are labeled with their contents specifically for consumer protection and the ability for consumers to make an informed CHOICE. There are no requirements for manufacturers using phthalates to label products accordingly. Therefore the consumer does not have CHOICE in making a selection with the exception of abstaining from any plastic product purchase (not realistic in today's world). This analogy fails to support your argument. But you raise a good point in making the analogy. I would agree that a good interim solution would be for manufacturers to label their products accordingly while they use up their existing inventory. This would allow them to deplete the inventory and provide the consumer with the ability to exercise an informed choice. Enjoy the holidays. Mark,

Sorry for the late response. The holidays and everything.

So, I will address one point that you have stated twice, so I can claim that I have indeed addressed at least one of your points.

“Again: sugar has been documented to cause lots of health problems. If it were banned tomorrow, would it be justifiable to make that ban retroactive?”

No it would not be. Sugar is an additive to foods. Foods are labeled with their contents specifically for consumer protection and the ability for consumers to make an informed CHOICE. There are no requirements for manufacturers using phthalates to label products accordingly. Therefore the consumer does not have CHOICE in making a selection with the exception of abstaining from any plastic product purchase (not realistic in today’s world). This analogy fails to support your argument.

But you raise a good point in making the analogy. I would agree that a good interim solution would be for manufacturers to label their products accordingly while they use up their existing inventory. This would allow them to deplete the inventory and provide the consumer with the ability to exercise an informed choice.

Enjoy the holidays.

]]> By: Mark http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/comment-page-1/#comment-433600 Mark Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:30:11 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=12278#comment-433600 Mike A: And I might add that you did not address my point (or, really, any of my points): if the materials are that toxic that they pose a real and immediate risk to children, then recall products with those materials that are already out there in addition to prohibiting the sale of products that were manufactured when they were legal. Congress didn't do that, and to my knowledge no one advocates doing that. Which means that they are not so dangerous as to justify imposing forcing lots of medium and small businesses to default on their loans. Again: sugar has been documented to cause lots of health problems. If it were banned tomorrow, would it be justifiable to make that ban retroactive? Mike A:
And I might add that you did not address my point (or, really, any of my points): if the materials are that toxic that they pose a real and immediate risk to children, then recall products with those materials that are already out there in addition to prohibiting the sale of products that were manufactured when they were legal. Congress didn’t do that, and to my knowledge no one advocates doing that. Which means that they are not so dangerous as to justify imposing forcing lots of medium and small businesses to default on their loans.

Again: sugar has been documented to cause lots of health problems. If it were banned tomorrow, would it be justifiable to make that ban retroactive?

]]> By: Mark http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/comment-page-1/#comment-433599 Mark Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:23:05 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=12278#comment-433599 Mike A: ....Except that products for children under the age of three are not the issue here. It's products for children between three and twelve that are at issue. For the most part, phthalates and lead have not been used in products for children under three for years. There is no science showing that these chemicals posed such a large risk to children over 3 as to justify banning them retroactively. Mike A:
….Except that products for children under the age of three are not the issue here. It’s products for children between three and twelve that are at issue. For the most part, phthalates and lead have not been used in products for children under three for years.

There is no science showing that these chemicals posed such a large risk to children over 3 as to justify banning them retroactively.

]]> By: Mike A. http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/comment-page-1/#comment-433597 Mike A. Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:51:23 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=12278#comment-433597 George and Mark, - We agree on the science that these chemicals are toxic and this has been known for years. - We agree the chemical compound should be banned moving forward. - The scientific studies resulted in EU banning, and developing alternatives. - For years the American manufacturer's continued to use these chemicals while the alternatives were available. Your point then, is we should have sympathy for the manufacturers who decided to continue to use these toxic chemicals in the face of the scientific data and alternatives? We can only agree to disagree on this one. PS: I love the comment: "But if it is not dangerous enough to order such a recall, then ban it prospectively so you’re not putting people out of business simply because they manufactured a product with components that were legal at the time, especially considering as those components posed no real risk to children over the age of three." So let me rephrase my previous comment to be more precise. A recession is a poor excuse to continue to poison your children under the age of 3. George and Mark,

- We agree on the science that these chemicals are toxic and this has been known for years.
- We agree the chemical compound should be banned moving forward.
- The scientific studies resulted in EU banning, and developing alternatives.
- For years the American manufacturer’s continued to use these chemicals while the alternatives were available.

Your point then, is we should have sympathy for the manufacturers who decided to continue to use these toxic chemicals in the face of the scientific data and alternatives?

We can only agree to disagree on this one.

PS: I love the comment: “But if it is not dangerous enough to order such a recall, then ban it prospectively so you’re not putting people out of business simply because they manufactured a product with components that were legal at the time, especially considering as those components posed no real risk to children over the age of three.”

So let me rephrase my previous comment to be more precise. A recession is a poor excuse to continue to poison your children under the age of 3.

]]> By: Mark http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/comment-page-1/#comment-433590 Mark Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:38:01 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=12278#comment-433590 One final point, just to draw a pretty clear comparison. We all know that regular consumption of sugar by children can cause significant health problems in the long run, yet sugar remains legal and soft drink manufacturers continue to use it despite the existence of low cost sugar substitutes. If tomorrow we banned sugar from soft drinks, would it be justifiable to make that ban retroactive? One final point, just to draw a pretty clear comparison. We all know that regular consumption of sugar by children can cause significant health problems in the long run, yet sugar remains legal and soft drink manufacturers continue to use it despite the existence of low cost sugar substitutes. If tomorrow we banned sugar from soft drinks, would it be justifiable to make that ban retroactive?

]]> By: George Mauer http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/comment-page-1/#comment-433589 George Mauer Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:40 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=12278#comment-433589 Yeah Mike, you're being a bit absurd here. No one is disparaging the science, just saying that although the ship is sinking, evacuating it in such a disorderly manner will likely result in far more problems. Yeah Mike, you’re being a bit absurd here. No one is disparaging the science, just saying that although the ship is sinking, evacuating it in such a disorderly manner will likely result in far more problems.

]]> By: Mark http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/comment-page-1/#comment-433588 Mark Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:31:39 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=12278#comment-433588 Mike A: In answer to your latter question, I took a look at the evidence to which advocates of retroactivity (such as Sens. Feinstein, Boxer, and Schakowsky) pointed. It was all premised on potential effects that no one seriously disputed; but, as far as I could tell, they did not point to any statistics about how many children, particularly over the age of 3, were suffering defects/illnesses in a given year. Again, there's no real problem with applying the ban prospectively, but if you're going to apply it retroactively, you have a pretty high burden of evidence to meet because people have relied on existing law. Mike A:
In answer to your latter question, I took a look at the evidence to which advocates of retroactivity (such as Sens. Feinstein, Boxer, and Schakowsky) pointed. It was all premised on potential effects that no one seriously disputed; but, as far as I could tell, they did not point to any statistics about how many children, particularly over the age of 3, were suffering defects/illnesses in a given year.
Again, there’s no real problem with applying the ban prospectively, but if you’re going to apply it retroactively, you have a pretty high burden of evidence to meet because people have relied on existing law.

]]> By: Mark http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/comment-page-1/#comment-433587 Mark Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:24:56 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=12278#comment-433587 Mike A: That is not my argument at all. My argument, instead, is that the extent to which they are unsafe does not justify retroactively banning them. No one seems to have any objections to a prospective ban (although the bans on products for children over the age of three defy logic because they fail to understand what makes the substances dangerous in the first place)- it's the retroactivity that causes the problem. There needs to be a sense of proportion here, as well - if the substance is that dangerous that it needs to be banned retroactively (suggesting that they are making people sick left and right), then order every product ever made that contains it recalled. But if it is not dangerous enough to order such a recall, then ban it prospectively so you're not putting people out of business simply because they manufactured a product with components that were legal at the time, especially considering as those components posed no real risk to children over the age of three. In terms of lead, keep in mind that only lead paint (and/or other soluble forms of lead) was banned in 1975, except for products intended for children under three, where it was effectively banned completely (IIRC, this latter was partly the result of a form of industry self-regulation, but I may be wrong about that). But non-soluble lead has never been banned (until now) for products intended for use by children over three - the reason simply being that children over age three don't routinely "mouth" products in a way that would potentially expose them to harm. Now, those products are also retroactively illegal. This is true no matter how unlikely the product is to be "mouthed" by a child - bicycle tire valves, school microscope light bulb solder, Swarovski crystals sewn into a piece of clothing, etc. No one denies that lead and phthalates can have harmful effects - but the potential for those harmful effects varies dramatically depending on the age of the child and the way in which the substance is used in a product. This law does not even attempt to recognize that distinction, treating all products containing these substances as if they were guaranteed to cause harm. Had the retroactivity issue only applied to products manufactured for children under the age of three, the inventory issue probably wouldn't be that much of a problem. Mike A:
That is not my argument at all. My argument, instead, is that the extent to which they are unsafe does not justify retroactively banning them. No one seems to have any objections to a prospective ban (although the bans on products for children over the age of three defy logic because they fail to understand what makes the substances dangerous in the first place)- it’s the retroactivity that causes the problem.

There needs to be a sense of proportion here, as well – if the substance is that dangerous that it needs to be banned retroactively (suggesting that they are making people sick left and right), then order every product ever made that contains it recalled. But if it is not dangerous enough to order such a recall, then ban it prospectively so you’re not putting people out of business simply because they manufactured a product with components that were legal at the time, especially considering as those components posed no real risk to children over the age of three.

In terms of lead, keep in mind that only lead paint (and/or other soluble forms of lead) was banned in 1975, except for products intended for children under three, where it was effectively banned completely (IIRC, this latter was partly the result of a form of industry self-regulation, but I may be wrong about that). But non-soluble lead has never been banned (until now) for products intended for use by children over three – the reason simply being that children over age three don’t routinely “mouth” products in a way that would potentially expose them to harm. Now, those products are also retroactively illegal. This is true no matter how unlikely the product is to be “mouthed” by a child – bicycle tire valves, school microscope light bulb solder, Swarovski crystals sewn into a piece of clothing, etc.

No one denies that lead and phthalates can have harmful effects – but the potential for those harmful effects varies dramatically depending on the age of the child and the way in which the substance is used in a product. This law does not even attempt to recognize that distinction, treating all products containing these substances as if they were guaranteed to cause harm. Had the retroactivity issue only applied to products manufactured for children under the age of three, the inventory issue probably wouldn’t be that much of a problem.

]]> By: Mike A. http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/comment-page-1/#comment-433585 Mike A. Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:58:22 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=12278#comment-433585 One last question Mark, what research did you do to come up with your conclusion "Importantly, I have seen no evidence to suggest that this was a problem so severe that children all over the country were regularly getting sick or suffering defects as a result." Is this opinion based on research or casual observations? One last question Mark, what research did you do to come up with your conclusion

“Importantly, I have seen no evidence to suggest that this was a problem so severe that children all over the country were regularly getting sick or suffering defects as a result.”

Is this opinion based on research or casual observations?

]]> By: Mike A. http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/comment-page-1/#comment-433584 Mike A. Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:34:59 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=12278#comment-433584 Phthalates were made illegal years ago by the EU based on our EPA's studies of these chemicals. There are no questions about the fact that they are dangerous to the human endocrine system. This is a fact, unless your faith in the free market is stronger than your faith in science. Scientific studies have showed statistical cause and effect that can not be ignored. You could replace "pthathlates" in your post with "lead" and changed the date to be 1975. The basis of your argument seems to be - because we have not banned them, therefore they must be safe. There are alternate chemical compounds to replace pthalates and are being used for EU-destined products that are safer and not cost prohibitive. A recession is no excuse to continue to poison your citizens. Phthalates were made illegal years ago by the EU based on our EPA’s studies of these chemicals. There are no questions about the fact that they are dangerous to the human endocrine system. This is a fact, unless your faith in the free market is stronger than your faith in science. Scientific studies have showed statistical cause and effect that can not be ignored. You could replace “pthathlates” in your post with “lead” and changed the date to be 1975. The basis of your argument seems to be – because we have not banned them, therefore they must be safe.

There are alternate chemical compounds to replace pthalates and are being used for EU-destined products that are safer and not cost prohibitive.

A recession is no excuse to continue to poison your citizens.

]]> By: Mark http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/comment-page-1/#comment-433582 Mark Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:56:09 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=12278#comment-433582 Mike A.: This is not an issue of whether phthalates have potentially dangerous properties. It's an issue of whether those properties are so potentially dangerous that they merit shutting businesses down that previously relied upon the law. Moreover, it's also an issue of considering whether a product made for a 12 year old is one that is likely to be used in such a way as to create the potential for phthalate ingestion....and in fact so likely to be used in that way that it justifies shutting down businesses that sold products containing phthalates. Importantly, I have seen no evidence to suggest that this was a problem so severe that children all over the country were regularly getting sick or suffering defects as a result. If that were the case, then this would be a different story (and phthalates would in fact have been made illegal years ago). Moreover, it is simply unrealistic to expect a small business to know every physical property of every substance contained in each of the products they assemble and/or sell - all that can usually be expected of them is to know whether or not the materials are legal. Ultimately, though, the problems this legislation attempts to solve (but actually makes worse) arose in the context of products manufactured by Big Toy. The result of the legislation is that only Big Toy will be able to comply with the new laws with ease - small, medium, and domestic businesses in numerous industries (not only the toy industry, but also clothing and educational products industries, amongst others) will have no choice but to close even though there has never been any allegation of a health problem with their products. Again - all this in the middle of a recession. Mike A.:
This is not an issue of whether phthalates have potentially dangerous properties. It’s an issue of whether those properties are so potentially dangerous that they merit shutting businesses down that previously relied upon the law. Moreover, it’s also an issue of considering whether a product made for a 12 year old is one that is likely to be used in such a way as to create the potential for phthalate ingestion….and in fact so likely to be used in that way that it justifies shutting down businesses that sold products containing phthalates. Importantly, I have seen no evidence to suggest that this was a problem so severe that children all over the country were regularly getting sick or suffering defects as a result. If that were the case, then this would be a different story (and phthalates would in fact have been made illegal years ago). Moreover, it is simply unrealistic to expect a small business to know every physical property of every substance contained in each of the products they assemble and/or sell – all that can usually be expected of them is to know whether or not the materials are legal.
Ultimately, though, the problems this legislation attempts to solve (but actually makes worse) arose in the context of products manufactured by Big Toy. The result of the legislation is that only Big Toy will be able to comply with the new laws with ease – small, medium, and domestic businesses in numerous industries (not only the toy industry, but also clothing and educational products industries, amongst others) will have no choice but to close even though there has never been any allegation of a health problem with their products.
Again – all this in the middle of a recession.

]]> By: Mike A. http://donklephant.com/2008/12/22/because-we-said-so/comment-page-1/#comment-433560 Mike A. Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:18:46 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=12278#comment-433560 You state the reason phthalates are unsafe is "Congress said so". Are you implying the work of US scientists showing phthalates having a negative impact on the human endocrine system are incorrect? Or are you simply stating that inventory is more important? Phthalates should have been made illegal years ago, and the fact that we did not do this earlier is not a reason to justify "inventory" costs. The impact of phthalates is not recent news, and companies that chose to ignore the evidence will need to pay the price for inventory costs. You state the reason phthalates are unsafe is “Congress said so”. Are you implying the work of US scientists showing phthalates having a negative impact on the human endocrine system are incorrect? Or are you simply stating that inventory is more important? Phthalates should have been made illegal years ago, and the fact that we did not do this earlier is not a reason to justify “inventory” costs. The impact of phthalates is not recent news, and companies that chose to ignore the evidence will need to pay the price for inventory costs.

]]>