Consumer Reports and CPSC Discuss Testing Interaction

CPSC staff October 22 talked with representatives of Consumer Reports about how the magazine communicates with CPSC in its product safety work. Much of the conversation addressed the challenges encountered once testing reveals problems, but it also involved discussion of the potential for surveillance cooperation.

The existing challenges center on when the magazine provides the agency – and companies – notice that it will be reporting safety findings. The goal, said Jennifer Shecter, the publication’s executive director of external relations, is to minimize anyone being taken by surprise.

Compliance staffers, especially Defects Investigations Director Scott Simmons, expressed the timing often felt like it was last minute. Shecter clarified that while there typically is just 24-to-48 hours’ notice before publication, she believed the magazine frequently shares the findings sooner, as much as five to ten days. Compliance lawyer Howard Tarnoff echoed Simmons feelings, explaining that the earlier CPSC gets the information, the better it can take the appropriate reaction.

One problem is CPSC’s ability to speak on the findings. This is complicated by 6(b), said Scott Wolfson, CPSC communications director. Often, the agency only can issue a no comment statement at first although it might be able to say more later.

Shecter also emphasized that sometimes communication with the agency or the company will lead the magazine to defer publicizing its findings. This is especially true if it learns that a recall is in the works. Then the preference is to let the corrective action “take its course,” she explained, adding, “We don’t want consumer to get mixed safety messages.”

Marc Schoem, Compliance deputy director, raised the possibility of surveillance cooperation. Urvashi Rangan, leader of Consumers Union’s safety and sustainability group, was receptive, acknowledging that the organization and agency have similar interests. Although the gathering discussed no specific ideas for potential joint projects, the conversation touched on issues like phthalates, children’s products, and bike helmets. Rangan clarified that interests were not limited to products for children, extending to general use items, especially those that children frequently encounter. Mentioned interests in this area included laundry packs and nanotechnology.

Rangan and Shecter also shared how CPSC shapes the magazine’s research. This includes identifying potential projects based on CPSC emerging hazard findings or recall trends as well as use of saferproducts.gov as a research tool. They also expressed pleasure in a recent visit to the CPSC lab as they obtained better understanding of agency testing approaches. From a non-CPSC perspective, criteria like market share and national availability can make products likely testing targets.

On saferproducts.gov, the gathering discussed the apparent acceptance of the database by industry. This included an observation by Shecter that she’s found many companies to be “progressive” about safety even where there are disagreements.

A portion of the meeting was not public as the discussion involved information deemed to merit protection.