Richard Gottlieb

A different view on Washington State’s toy safety legislation

My last blog was about a piece written for The Seattle Times by Nichole Brodeur entitled “Don’t toy with this industry.” In it, I credited Brodeur with writing a nuanced piece that I thought reflected a reasoned approach to Washington State’s proposed toughest in the nation safety legislation.

It is, I believe, intellectually lazy to only write about those with whom I agree. So, today, let’s look at an alternative view in The News Tribune of Tacoma, Washington. 

The editorial, entitled: “Gregoire should not bow to toy company threats” calls on Governor Gregoire not to veto the bill.

It accuses Mattel, Hasbro and the TIA of being heavy handed in trying to prevent states from passing toy safety laws. To get a flavor, just read these opening sentences: “Toy companies, upset about a toxic toys bill sitting on the governor’s desk, are threatening to take their lead-tainted and phthalate-laced balls and go home. Gov. Gregoire should let ‘em.”

The editorial goes on to state Washington consumers have nothing to worry about. The editorial instructs that:

The toy industry is not going to stop selling toys in Washington just because the state decides to do what the federal government should have done long ago: Crack down on dangerous ingredients in children’s playthings.

By the time the state’s standards kick in July 2009, Washington is likely to be joined by other states fed up that Congress has not done more. Lawmakers in 29 states are considering bills similar to Washington’s law; five other states have standards already on the books. California’s ban on phthalates in toys takes effect next year.

There is some whistling in the dark here but the notion misses the bigger point. Yes, it is possible that many states could have laws and that; in that case, the toy industry would have to cobble together some manner of dealing with it. What the editorial misses, however, is that in dealing with a plethora of differing laws, consumers would become the victim of a similar plethora of redundant costs that would ultimately not make toys appreciably safer but would certainly make them too expensive to buy.

In addition, smaller toy manufacturers who would not have the means of meeting the various state laws would go out of business and as a result so would the many small, independent toy retailers who make their livelihoods selling these toys.

So, is the toy industry, as the editorial states, against tougher safety regulations? Absolutely not! What it is against is a hodge-podge of regulations that differ by state and add cost but not value. 

And what is the industry for? The industry is for a Federal standard that mandates one set of regulations with one set of costs. 

Thankfully, the editorial does end on a less strident and more thoughtful note:

The more compelling argument is that having different standards for different states would create a regulatory nightmare. Critics have a point there. State-by-state rules are not the ideal way to regulate consumer products.

But the feds haven’t given states much of a choice. Better that toy makers have to jump through bureaucratic hoops than continue putting toxins in the mouths of babes. If Washington and other states show the way, perhaps the feds will follow.

Amen.

Posted by Richard Gottlieb on April 1, 2008 | Comments (0)