The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) has been a subject of widespread discussion and controversy since its enactment. A recent article appearing in the business section of Saturday’s New York Times finally addresses some of the law’s significant implications. The piece itself offers a competent overview of the issues, beginning with the plight of a wooden toy maker in Ogunquit, Maine. This small manufacturer, who crafts approximately 80 items using materials like maple, walnut oil, and local beeswax, estimates that securing the necessary third-party testing for compliance would cost him around $30,000.
The article effectively explores the tensions between large and small manufacturers regarding compliance burdens, and it touches on the adverse effects of the law on thrift stores and the market for vintage books. Overall, the Times‘s report is a decent contribution to the public discourse on the matter.
However, the timing of the article raises serious concerns. The New York Times has now chosen to cover the harm caused by this legislation fully ten months after The Washington Post and other media outlets began reporting the basic outlines of the story. The paper’s coverage comes:
- Nine and a half months after a national furor developed, prompting both members of Congress and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to issue rushed “clarifications.”
- Nine months after hundreds of bloggers were already on the case, and the law’s effects on thrift stores were garnering headlines across the country. During this time, the Times‘s continued silence led commentators to note its “weird blind spot” on the issue.
- Eight and a half months after a Times editorial, deemed “deeply clueless” by critics, assailed those who were accused of seeking to “foment needless fears that the law could injure smaller enterprises like libraries, resale shops and handmade toy businesses.”
- Seven and a half months after protests by minibike dealers began drawing extensive national coverage.
- Seven months after critics organized a rally on Capitol Hill, and The Washington Post joined in reporting on the law’s dire effects on vintage (pre-1985) children’s books.
The Times’s belated reporting arrives approximately 300 days late, overlooking potentially billions of dollars in compliance and opportunity costs. Nonetheless, this publication is significant. The news division has now implicitly rebuked the editorial side’s earlier, seemingly “ideologically blinkered dismissal” of the “needless fears that the law could injure smaller enterprises.”
Moreover, the New York Times‘s acknowledgment of the story may serve as an essential form of validation for other media sectors—including certain magazines and network news departments—that often rely on Times coverage. This belated permission may allow them to finally recognize the legitimacy of the story and begin according serious attention to the continuing ramifications and “calamity” caused by the CPSIA. When they undertake this effort, these outlets will discover a substantial body of information to review and absorb.
