The head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission wants Congress to repeal a provision in federal law that has prevented the agency from rapidly warning the public about dangerous and deadly products.
On Wednesday, CPSC Chair Alex Hoehn-Saric voiced his support for a bill introduced last week by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., that would repeal a provision known as Section 6(b). The law requires the agency to consult with manufacturers before sharing details about specific products, even if officials deem the items so hazardous that the agency is pursuing a recall.
\u201cFor too long, CPSC has been hamstrung in providing vital safety information to consumers in a timely fashion,\u201d Hoehn-Saric said in a statement to NBC News. \u201cMy goal has always been to put consumers first, and this bill empowers CPSC to do just that.\u201d
The Democratic lawmakers first introduced the bill in 2021, after seeing reports that Peloton was fighting the CPSC\u2019s efforts to recall the Tread+ treadmill and was pushing back against the wording of the agency\u2019s warning to the public.
Peloton announced in March 2021 that a child had died in an accident involving the treadmill; another child suffered a \u201csignificant brain injury\u201d in a separate incident reported to the CPSC. But the company did not recall its treadmills until May 2021. Peloton initially accused the CPSC of releasing \u201cinaccurate and misleading\u201d information about the product\u2019s hazards before later apologizing for resisting a recall. The company did not respond to a request for comment.
Blumenthal blamed Section 6(b) for contributing to such delays and putting children\u2019s lives in jeopardy.
\u201cIt was a matter of life and death,\u201d Blumenthal said.
He pointed out that Section 6(b) wasn\u2019t part of the original 1972 bill that created the federal safety agency. It was added in the early 1980s as part of a compromise struck after the Reagan administration said it wanted to abolish the CPSC altogether.
No other federal safety agency, including those that regulate cosmetics, drugs, food and automobiles, is subject to similar restrictions on issuing public warnings and statements. \u201cIt is an aberration \u2014 it is an isolated instance of industry throttling an agency,\u201d Blumenthal added.
Industry groups, however, say that Section 6(b) is critical for making sure that any information the CPSC releases about individual products is fair and accurate, preventing the government from unjustly harming companies\u2019 reputations. Under the provision, the agency must take \u201creasonable steps\u201d to ensure the accuracy of any information that publicly identifies a product or manufacturer, including records released under Freedom of Information Act requests.
The process \u201callows industry to alert regulators to potential issues and ensures that the CPSC provides information to the public that is grounded in fact,\u201d Chris Netram, a managing vice president for the National Association of Manufacturers, an industry group, said in a statement. \u201cModifying current law would remove an important safeguard ensuring the accuracy of product safety information released to the public.\u201d
The repeal bill faces long odds in Congress. The original proposal failed to advance in 2021, when Democrats controlled both chambers. Republicans now control the House, and the CPSC has become an unexpected political target for the GOP after a commissioner floated the possibility of banning gas stoves if they couldn\u2019t be made safe.
In the absence of congressional action, the agency can act on its own to make more modest changes to the provision. In February, the CPSC proposed modifying Section 6(b) to speed up the process of issuing warnings and recalls. But the last time the agency tried to advance such an overhaul, back in 2014, it drew strong pushback from industry groups.
Under the current rule, the CPSC must give a company 15 days to respond to information the agency wants to make public and the CPSC must evaluate any comments it receives. And if the CPSC decides to disclose something over the company\u2019s objections, the agency must notify the company of its decision and then wait five days. During that time, the company can sue to stop that information from being made public, according to the statute.
Industry representatives warn that forgoing these steps could allow misleading information about products to proliferate.
\u201cAn unintended consequence of this bill if enacted may be the release of incomplete or inaccurate information that creates unnecessary worry and confusion,\u201d Lisa Trofe, executive director of the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, an industry group, said in a statement. \u201cProviding timely, clear information to families that they can act on is a priority.\u201d
Those pushing for repeal, however, say the entire Section 6(b) process is fundamentally flawed.
\u201cIt is outrageous that any kind of negotiation or permission would have to come from the company itself,\u201d Schakowsky said. \u201cIf we could just allow an alert to go out in a timely way, lives would be saved.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n