Tenenbaum threw good and moral businesses to the dogs, all to avoid criticizing the 'good statute' (CPSIA).

Radanovich about whether she needed 'that flexibility so can exempt safe products', she said it was 'premature for to answer that question at this time because these beads went all the way up to 23,000 ppm.' In so answering, Ms. Tenenbaum passed on stating the obvious to Congress, namely that many safe products are being sent to the gallows by an overly broad and inflexible law. Rush's glowing introduction and matches his faulty characterization of the original decision. This fits the message control implicit in Mr. Tenenbaum, although she explicitly ruled out risk assessment in the original decision/statement. Yes, rhinestones are apparently dangerous now, according to Ms. In other words, she reversed field and defended the rhinestones decision on basis of RISK ASSESSMENT (which never occurred), rather than the bright line lead limit rule set by Congress. Tenenbaum then argued that the CPSC 'could not determine' if swallowing '50 beads' might in fact cause substantial illness or injury. Noting that leaching from one bead would not meet the old FHSA 'substantial illness or injury' standard, Ms.

She then said her statement was 'poorly worded'. George Radanovich asked her if the Commission has the 'flexibility to exempt safe products that don't meet the exemption standard', she first replied that 'interpretation' of her comments muddied the waters by implying that rhinestones 'pose no hazard at all to children'. Tenenbaum herself rose to the occasion of rewriting history when she took the opportunity to insert risk assessment into her decision retroactively. Rush's revisionist history, what's my gripe? Tenenbaum's statement was the opposite, namely that a decision to reject the exemption was compelled by law, not safety risk. Rush recharacterized the rhinestones decision as one using common sense safety judgments, and Ms. Risk assessment is no longer permitted by the CPSC in making exemption determinations, including topics like the bioavailability and accessibility of the lead in the crystals. Notwithstanding that CPSC staff 'recognized that most crystal and glass beads do not appear to pose a serious health risk to children', the fact that some lead will pass into the body makes it impossible to grant an exemption. The law does not require that the lead leached from rhinestones be deemed 'harmful'.ДЇ. She reinforced this with her assertion that jewelry is one of the top five items (inappropriately) ingested by children.Д®. Swallowing or mouthing rhinestones is a 'normal' and 'foreseeable' use and abuse of jewelry. She acknowledges blood lead level changes may not measurable.Д.

Industry data shows that some leaching of lead from ingested rhinestones will occur. Rhinestones violate the CPSIA lead limits, and therefore need an exemption to be sold legally.Д¬. Exemptions under the law are only permitted if it can be scientifically determined that NO lead will pass from the rhinestones into the body from foreseeable use and abuse of the product.Д«. Tenenbaum's statement on the rhinestones decision, she set out the following logic to justify her voting decision:ДЄ. Her words, at the time, were rather different. Let's not forget these are the words of the Democratic Subcommittee Chairman, not Ms. For example, you talked and wrote about how children handle and play with this jewelry by mouthing, ingesting, and swallowing the beads, and how any amount of lead constituted too much lead in these beads.' You applied the facts as you found them to the CPSIA's lead limits and to real world facts and foreseeable possibilities. One of the first agenda items you scheduled was whether to exclude crystals and glass beads in children's jewelry from the lead content restriction in Section 101(a) of the CPSIA. Tenenbaum's good administration: 'When you took over the helm, Madame Chair, you showed courage, good sense and a preference for rulemaking over eleventh hour stays. How much of a set-up was last week's hearing? In case it isn't obvious that this one-witness, check-the-box hearing had a pre-ordained outcome, let's look at one issue as an illustration (my favorite, rhinestones):Д¬hairman Bobby Rush of the Subcommittee hosting the hearing kicked things off by heralding the CPSC's rhinestones decision as a sign of Ms.

Rhinestone cowboy