Drawstrings and the Nanny State

    On Tuesday, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a recall of some children's hooded sweatshirts due to "strangulation hazard."  The danger?  Drawstrings.

    As noted on the CPSC website, "Federal law bars any person from selling products subject to a publicly-announced voluntary recall by a manufacturer or a mandatory recall ordered by the Commission," and also, "It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product."

    Lest anyone misunderstand, I get that it is possible for such drawstrings to cause harm.  And yet the bottom line is that the federal government has criminalized a piece of clothing, or at least its sale or resale.  Are not warnings enough anymore? Is caveat emptor obsolete?  Must our government continually save us from ourselves?

    While pondering these questions, I decided to tweet the link and see if anyone else was pondering what I was pondering: "So, did everyone know that it is *illegal* to sell children's hoodies that have drawstrings?"  Much to my surprise, within minutes I received a reply from the CPSC:

    Whether the Twitter account of the CPSC is monitored or somehow generates automated tweets I do not know.  But the article to which the CPSC linked reads in part as follows:

Drawstrings can catch on items such as playground equipment or vehicle doors. CPSC has received 26 reports of children who have died when drawstrings in their clothes got tangled on playground slides, school bus doors and other objects. Waist and bottom drawstrings that were caught in cars and buses resulted in dragging incidents. 

CPSC first issued guidelines on drawstrings in February 1996. These were then incorporated into a voluntary standard in 1997. Since the clothing industry started following the voluntary standard, deaths involving neck or hood drawstrings  decreased by 75 percent and there have been no deaths associated with waist or bottom drawstrings. 

Still, we continue to see jackets, sweatshirts, and sweaters made with drawstrings that are dangerous. CPSC has issued more than 130 recalls involving clothes with drawstrings including 8 recalls between November 2011 and May 8, 2012. Here are some recalls from  just the past month (as of publication of this blog). So, check your child’s upper outerwear and make sure to follow the instructions on these recalls.

    So even after voluntary steps by the industry resulted in a 75% reduction in fatalities, the CPSC took the more drastic step of an outright ban.  But, one might argue, if it prevents the death of one child, it's worth it.  But isn't it possible our reliance on government to manage our safety in such minute ways has resulted in a more careless, less responsible society?

    Since the CPSC responded to my initial tweet, I attempted to continue the dialogue with a follow up. Having four children myself, I believe there is a clothing accessory that has endangered my children far more often than any drawstring: shoelaces.  I cannot find reliable statistics, but any parent could testify of the hazards of untied shoes.  So I asked the CPSC:

    So far, I have not received a reply.  Hopefully I haven't given them any ideas.  But just in case, I'm putting all my investment dollars into Velcro.

HHS eCards: Lose Weight, Quit Smoking, Stop Bullying

    As the full implementation of ObamaCare draws nearer, the federal government is pulling out all the stops.  Although the president has often professed a "laser-like" focus on creating jobs, much of the attention of the government seems to be centered not on the economic health of the country, but rather the literal health of its citizens. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website Healthfinder.gov even has a selection of over 100 eCards that can be sent to friends and family to encourage them to lose weight, quit smoking, get screened for various diseases, and even stop bullying.

    Some of the eCards are rather less than subtle.  For instance, one invites the recipient to "make a promise to eat well and move more."

    In case the reader is slow on the uptake, the next page removes all doubt about what the sender has in mind:

    HHS even offered a Father's Day card that went beyond the usual praise and admiration reserved for fathers on their special day and exhorted dads everywhere to "skip the salt" and "take the stairs instead of the elevator."

    Apparently nothing says "Happy Father's Day" like one's child sounding like one's mother.

    The cards do not stop at physical health, either.  There is an anti-bullying card that asks "What's the difference between teasing and bullying?  If we’re not sure, our kids probably aren’t either. Let’s talk about bullying – because all kids deserve a happy, safe childhood."

    It remains unclear from the card if the accompanying photo (above) is intended to represent teasing or bullying.

    To maximize the impact of the cards, the site helpfully informs visitors that they may "send these cards to a friend or loved one by returning to the previous page and entering up to ten (10) recipient names and email addresses."  This feature, however, produces some unlikely scenarios, such as simultaneously congratulating ten friends on recently announced pregnancies.  For some occasions, there's just no substitute for a hand-written note.


Note: A version of this article appeared first at The Weekly Standard.

Next Up for New York: The War on al-Fredo

    In 2004, Michael Bloomberg spoke the following inspiring words at the Republican National Convention in the city where he has served as mayor since 2002:

No place epitomizes the American experience and the American spirit more than New York City. Ironically, it is exactly because we are a city that embraces freedom, that welcomes everyone and encourages their dreams, that New York remains on the front lines in the war on terror.

    Eight years later, the mayor spoke to Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC about his proposal to ban the sale of soda and other sugary drinks in sizes larger than 16 oz:

"We're not taking away anybody's right to do anything," he told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. "We're simply forcing you to understand."

    I do not live in New York City, but I must say that I find those words considerably less inspiring, unless inspiring derision counts.  The mayor has taken on salt and trans fats, but both of those are behind-the-scenes ingredients that may cause businesses and restaurants headaches, but the consumer does not absorb the direct impact.  He also imposed wide ranging smoking bans, which, considering the checkered past of that habit, was not met with much resistance from the general public.  After all, who has had a meal spoiled because the next table was filled with people using lots of salt and trans fats and drinking enormous glasses of sugary beverages?  Smoking can actually affect other people.
    However, in his latest move, the mayor has taken things to a Hole. Nutha. Level.  The arbitrary nature of the proposal is staggering.  Sixteen ounces?  Why not twelve?  Soda?  But not beer or wine? (Exactly how many "driving while full of Pepsi" arrests are made in the city each year?)  The mayor has already been mocked for celebrating National Doughnut Day practically simultaneously with the announcement of his beverage ban.  Will the "baker's dozen" be outlawed to prevent an 8.5% increase in sugar consumption that occurs with every purchase of a dozen doughnuts at many bakeries?  Will there be a limit to the number of sugar packets one can add to a cup of tea or coffee?  Will someone be allowed to buy two 16 oz. beverages without proof that a second individual will consume the contraband drink?
    The mayor's penchant for banning behaviors he finds unwise could lead to a whole series of commercials like the Audi Green Police commercial that ran during the Super Bowl a few years back:



    I consider myself somewhat of a TV commercial connoisseur (or I was back when I used to watch TV,) and I count that one of the best ever made.  It is ironic that Audi was actually selling a "green" product while at the same time ridiculing the nannies.  But the idea is ripe for imitation in Bloomberg's latest attempt to save New Yorker's from themselves.  Who will be the first to strike back in the public relations war that is sure to come?
    If government is permitted to engage in this level of micromanagement of citizen's lives, what activity is safe?  (Besides abortion, which is, of course, untouchable and guaranteed by the Constitution.)  They came for salt, they came for sugar, can Fettuccine Alfredo be far behind with its nearly 1000 calories and 60+ grams of fat per serving?  (One can almost sense Mayor Bloomberg shuddering at the thought.)  In less than a decade, the enemy has gone from al-Qaeda to al-Fredo.  And the loser is freedom.