New Republican CPSC Leadership Abandons Proposed Safety Regulations

Just last week, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, which now sits entirely under Republican control, made a significant declaration. It is planning to eliminate several suggested regulations, referencing their misalignment with the refreshed objectives of the agency and their failing to contribute to safety enhancement. The Acting Chair of CPSC, Peter Feldman, expressed his firm belief that the direction of the agency should be centred around firm scientific principles, substantial data analysis, and practical wisdom.

He put forward the notion that under Joe Biden’s watch, the commission operated on a less than stable scientific foundation, relied on subpar data, and disregarded what Feldman views as common sense, casting it aside like any ordinary projectile, say a yard dart with a dangerously sharp steel tip. As some may remember, the past year saw President Donald Trump expel the three Democratic commission members without underlining a viable cause, which sought to violate the law, regardless of whether the significance of legality held any weight at this point.

The stripped commissioners brought their grievances to court, leading to a block being placed on Trump’s attempts to expel them by a federal judge. However, in a twist of events, the Supreme Court decided, only temporarily, that these dismissals could proceed while litigation regarding the case moved forward. Should the commissioners be victorious, there is a potential for reinstatement, given that the CPSC still exists.

The implications in Feldman’s statements hint that if measures towards ensuring consumer safety were to noticeably impact manufacturers’ profitability, the revamped CPSC might spend twice as long deliberating, as long as direct and severe injuries are not an immediate concern. As a testament to their commitment to employing ‘the best science’, the CPSC officially disclosed the cancellation of six planned rules.

A couple of the regulations that were swept off the table aimed at enhancing the safety of equipment like table saw blades and addressing the rollover risks associated with recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs) – those angular quad-wheeled off-road contraptions often compared to dune buggies.

An accompanying proposed rule that was also scrapped sought to enhance the resistance of ROVs to ‘debris penetration’, such as protruding branches or sticks that could potentially intrude into the vehicle and cause harm to its occupants. So, with a swift wave of dismissal, there went these ‘superfluous’ rule proposals.

One intriguing statement in Feldman’s declarations compelled us to pause and ponder – the part about doing away with rules that promote ‘unscientific ideological agendas’. One might wonder exactly what kinds of ‘unscientific ideological agendas’ Feldman aimed to target with this policy. That became clear after careful consideration.

It seems that Feldman was implying a certain, ‘Woke’ agenda to prohibit gas stoves, even though this was never an established plan. However, in the previous year, Richard Trumka Jr., then a CPSC Commissioner, had proposed investigation into regulating gas stoves, given that numerous studies indicate their contribution to conditions like childhood asthma and their tendency to release harmful substances like nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, benzene, and others, even when turned off.

This established science remains valid, yet it appears to have been dismissed by Feldman. And while methane is undeniably a significant greenhouse gas, Trumka had merely discussed the regulation of gas stoves with a focus on indoor safety.

Rendering facts as secondary compared to stereotypes regarding overzealous governmental regulators, Feldman seems to have evidently misled the public on the issue of gas stoves. He stated that the CPSC’s review had dismissed a ‘previous commissioner’s proposal to ban gas stoves’, which was a highly improbable possibility.

He further manipulated the truth by claiming that this proposal was ‘founded on climate ideology rather than consumer safety’ when the primary concerns focused solely on the safety implications of consumers using gas stoves in their residences.

Therefore, despite the promises of a renewal grounded in sound reasoning, the projections for the new CPSC, under its current administration, have led us to reserve our optimism. After all, this change of guard presents a new era, one that so far has appeared to lean more towards financial interest than public safety, under the guise of alleged ‘sound science’ and ‘common sense’.

Our reservations are not without cause. The revelation of the six dropped regulations and the dismissal of proposals to improve the safety of vulnerable machinery hint towards a shifting paradigm. While there’s no explicit confirmation of a trend, these initial signs suggest an unsettling future under the new CPSC leadership.

Watching these series of events unfold, one can’t help but question – will the CPSC prioritize profit over people? Or will these early indications prove to be false alarms, leading to outcomes that further the mandate of the CPSC – safeguarding the American consumer? Only time will truly tell.