The Fractured State of Product Safety Harmonization
By Sean Oberle
Harmonization can be the golden ring of the product safety carousel. Round and round everyone goes, but the goal remains elusive. Indeed, our premium-sister service Product Safety Letter (PSL) has reported concern that the CPSIA – not to mention activity in the EU on the GPSD update, Canada on the in-the-works CCPSA, and Australia on the new Trade Practices Act – means that nations are losing chances for harmonization. As each nation sets its desires and requirements into law, flexibility for harmonization is lost. However, some trends suggest that the ring still is there, although shrunken … or perhaps broken into numerous smaller rings.
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.
First, earlier this summer, CPSC chairman Inez Tenenbaum visited the European Parliament. There she spoke of the concept of targeted harmonization. PSLreported:
”Members of the European Parliament June 8 in Belgium expressed openness to CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum’s suggestion that the U.S., the EU and other nations target harmonization efforts at focused and limited projects. Warning against attempts to ‘boil the ocean’ with overly ambitious efforts, she suggested looking for ‘a few, narrow areas where we could be successful.’”
She mentioned that window coverings could be a first attempt, and sure enough, a week later, CPSC, DG Sanco and Health Canada were jointly pushing that industry to take action for a single solution across all three jurisdictions to eliminate hazards to children from cords.
Meanwhile, a month later, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) moved forward with an effort targeting product safety, including the creation of a new working group focused on such matters. The project included a report on the state of international product safety issues, including a breakdown of the differences and similarities in 17 jurisdictions’ information collection systems.
Of course, OECD is not the only international group on the product safety merry-go-round. ICPHSO, the International Consumer Product Health and Safety Organization, is unique in its ability to bring together the top clout in product safety from all around the world at its two annual conferences. It has been the venue for numerous discussions and agreements on product safety among various nations in recent years.
Relatedly, DG Sanco is scheduling its annual International Product Safety Week in Brussels, Belgium to occur just after ICPHSO’s London meeting this fall. The sessions will include interaction with the new OECD working party.
Perhaps the state of harmonization could best be described – especially in light of Tenenbaum’s call for targeted projects – with a seeming oxymoron: fractured harmonization. That means that any potential benefits will be subject to a phrase used a lot lately in the product safety world: “it depends.” What depends is whether stakeholders can find pockets of flexibility – be it product-by-product (like window coverings) or issue-by-issue (like tracking and traceability) – among the inflexibility of laws.
Of course, this might be nothing new. Consumer product safety as a whole is a fractured business. It covers a wide array of products (consider the oft-cited factoid that CPSC has jurisdiction over more than 15,000 kinds of products). What’s possible with toys may not matter for ATVs, washing machines, upholstered furniture or art material.
The carousel goes around again. People keep trying.
Sean Oberle is publisher of Product Safety Letter, Product Safety Forum, and Product Safety Daily. Reach him at (301) 229-1027, seanoberle@productsafetyletter.com
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version
