Future State Toxic Toys Laws to Be Preempted Under Federal Consumer Protection Legislation
9 August 2008Consumer and safety groups are rightly applauding an agreement by House and Senate lawmakers to move forward a bill which bans lead and most phthalates — plastic chemicals that can cause developmental disorders — in most children’s products. The bill, already approved by the U.S. House, will also increase funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, strengthen testing standards, and enhance public access to product safety information.
There is little question that the proliferation of state laws that passed this year banning toxic toys played a key role in industry leaders deciding to make concessions over the bill. Unfortunately, one key concession that industry demanded, and got, in the negotiations is preemption of new state laws protecting consumer safety. While state Attorneys General will have a role in enforcing the new federal law in the courts, states will largely be barred from enacting new rules to protect the public that are stricter than the federal standards, a point that industry spokespeople emphasized in their support for the bill:
A single set of national standards was “the framework we were looking for,” said Carter Keithley, president of the Toy Industry Association … E.R. Anderson, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman in Washington, called the legislation “a good bill, in our estimation.” She added, “We are very pleased that this bill acknowledges that 50 separate state standards is unworkable and inefficient.”
While the new proposed bill is a considerable improvement over existing consumer protections, the danger is that when new public health dangers are found in the future, if the federal agencies refuse to act, there will be little ability for the states to step in and be a check on federal inaction.
This is part of a pattern of Congress voting over 57 times in the previous five years to preempt state laws. As we saw with the subprime mortgage debacle, federal laws designed to protect consumers have often been used instead to stop stronger state laws, so progressives should be wary of federal compromises such as this one that cripple state authority.
[Source: Excerpted from Stateside Dispatch, July 31, 2008]