Reports of Harm – Enough to Make Safer Products

The opinions expressed in this piece are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of Product Safety Forum.   Product Safety Forum is a free service of Product Safety Letter. Its mission is twofold: to promote frank and open airing of product safety issues and to provide advice and guidance from top experts in the field.   Do you have an idea or article you think would make a great piece for Product Safety Forum, including commentary or reaction to this one? Then email Publisher Sean Oberle to discuss it.

 

A response from Nancy Cowles, Executive Director of Kids In Danger and Rachel Weintraub, Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel at Consumer Federation of America.

 

The May 27, 2012 article by Lee Bishop and Steve McGonegal, titled How Much “Harm” is Reported in Safer Products Database “Reports of Harm”? seems to assume that only after a person is injured seriously enough to require medical treatment should any of us be concerned about potentially dangerous products. That attitude might explain how many dangerous products end up in consumer use – only to be recalled after – often many – reports of harm.

 

First, we hope the authors examined CPSC data more carefully than they did the previous studies they mentioned in the article. For example, they refer to the “CU report”* – meaning the report conducted by Consumer Federation of America and Kids in Danger, not Consumers Union, although they did join in the press release marking the anniversary – a significant detail that should not have been overlooked.

 

Second, the authors do not seem familiar with the statutory language that created the database. Section 212 of the CPSIA states that the type of information that consumers and other public health professionals can report include, “reports of harm relating to the use of consumer products,”¹ The statutory language did not require that only injuries or deaths could be reported, but rather “reports of harm,” which is broader than “injuries.” The CPSIA makes certain that this is clarified by defining what “harm” means. The CPSIA defines harm as the term is used in the database as meaning, “‘(1) injury, illness, or death’; or ‘(2) risk of injury, illness, or death, as determined by the Commission.’” Thus, their interpretation is a mistake that contradicts the plain language of the statute.

 

Most importantly, the authors premise is flawed because it concludes, unlike how the authors of CPSIA intended, that we needn’t worry about near misses or potential harms from a product. This ignores several key points. Some product failures are indistinguishable from injury reports except for luck. For instance, every disengaged drop-side crib rail has the same potential to cause a death as the deaths that were reported. It was simply a matter of timing and luck that some parents discovered the flaw before their child did or that the child fell to the floor unharmed, rather than strangled when entrapped. Each time the hazardous condition is present an injury is equally likely to occur. Also, they point repeatedly to the fact that reported kitchen incidents were least likely to involve injury. Perhaps that’s because a fire in your kitchen is likely to get your attention quicker than another product flaw that may be silent or relatively invisible, leading one to stop using the product.

 

The data the authors provide is useful and should be analyzed, and as they point out, used in conjunction with NEISS emergency room data and other sources of information to paint a complete picture. As a self-reporting mechanism, the Saferproducts.gov database was never intended to be a statistically accurate picture of injuries overall, but to provide information and insight on particular products, types of products or types of injuries.

 

But their conclusion that because not every report entails a trip to the ER, “the number of reports does not provide a reliable indicator of the injury risk associated with purchase and use of specific consumer products or categories of products” is false.

 

---

 

¹ Section 212 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008).

 

---

 

^{* PSL note: The article elsewhere referred to it as the “Consumer Federation of America/Kids in Danger/Consumers Union (CFA/KID/CU) report.”}