Import Safety Report

A good share of my week has been spent in activities related to a report for the President on the safety of imports. Every few days it seems another significant recall is announced.  It has become a matter of real focus for consumers and policy makers.

It is my observation that issues like this slowly ripen because of bigger and more fundamental shifts in economic or social practices. Concern over the safety of imports is not unique to the United States.  Last week I hosted the health ministers of the G7 countries plus Mexico and the European Union.  Every country represented is dealing with import safety concerns. 

What are the underlying economic and social changes causing this sudden concern?  Import safety concerns represent the natural maturing process of a global market.  They represent an early warning that we need to adapt our systems and thinking to accommodate a new set of challenges.  The old ways do not protect us adequately from the new risks. 

I was assigned by the President to chair a government-wide review of our practices related to imports of all kinds.  The working group included 10 other cabinet members and the heads of the Food and Drug Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

I’ve previously reported on some of my experiences doing this review.  Today, I want to provide you access to the report.  I think it has been well crafted.  It contains 50 specific recommendations in 14 categories, all crafted to fill in detail to the Strategic Framework we provided the President eight weeks ago.

In keeping with my goal of making these postings shorter (and the fact that I’m out of time today) I will provide some additional observations later.  In the meantime I would value your reactions.

Comments

Dear Mr. Secretary:

As a retired Customs officer I have been following the progress of your Working Group in earnest. You are to be personally congratulated for "going to the field" to see the situation firsthand, and the entire Working Group and staff are to be applauded for producing an admirable roadmap for product safety.

You have identified many of the weaknesses in the current system and have proposed positive steps to "fix whut's broke." Now, to a large degree, the ball is really in Congress's court to provide the funding necessary to enable all of the involved agencies to do their jobs in a 21st Century manner - and Congress can't "rob Peter to pay Paul" in order to accomplish these goals. One Senator has already been quoted as asking where the money will be coming from - as if he didn't know that he and his colleagues will have to provide it.

In my experienced opinion, the Working Group will have to morph into a permanent advisory body reporting to the President if the work you did is to be of lasting effect. Without a body to keep attention focused on the issue, interest will wane, and "the wheel will have to be reinvented all over again."

Again, "brava!" and "bravo!" to all the ladies and gentlemen who worked so diligently on this project.

Keep up the good work!

Sincerely,
Lou Alfano

Posted by: Lou Alfano | November 08, 2007 at 12:01 PM

My primary comment is that section 2.3 on page 25 will set up another CCHIT type of organization. This gives the government a great deal of power over commerce that it probably shouldn't have. Large businesses LOVE regulations. They have the resources to deal with it, whereas small and mid-sized business don't. These types of regulations put up market entry barriers and protect large businesses - much like the large CCHIT certification fees.

This one is a bad idea. You are going to kill competition, which is the key to protecting consumers. If a company produces or sells dangerous "stuff," the consumers will buy from someone else. That will be hard to do if competition is stamped out in this way.

Posted by: Chris Farley | November 13, 2007 at 09:34 AM

Dear Mr. Secretary,

Like the other posts - kudos for going to the field and being a very active agent. To see, talk and witness what is going on.

The mess with imports does not bode well for any future pandemic where masks and such are produced overseas.

I'm dissapointed that business do not see the self inflicted harm and bad press. I hope we do not end up with another government agency. Sigh, we might have to.

Please keep up the good work.

Regards,
Allen

Posted by: | November 16, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Dear Mr. Secretary:

As an International student I support you move and think it is very moving.

Joe
http://www.studentloandir.com

Posted by: Loan | November 24, 2007 at 08:26 AM

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I have arguing with myself for a few weeks about responding to Chris Farley's comments. Since I'm not sure of this person's gender. I'll just use "Farley."

Farley appears to be concerned about the fees that approved nongovernmental entities might charge for certification services. In my opinion, if entitles are approved to provide certification services, these entities should not be given carte blanche to charge whatever the traffic will bear, but should have to justify their fees to the approving agency. Such would be in the spirit of the Government's programs to promote small businesses.

What Farley fails to recognize (or chooses to ignore) is that the alternative would be to build a bigger Federal bureaucracy to take on the tasks of certifying the various firms' processes, etc. Such an approach would be unfair to the overall taxpaying public, which would, in essence, be asked to underwrite the costs of subject firms' doing business.

Equity demands that those who use a service should pay for it, and if the service is government-mandated, justice demands that the service be government-regulated.

Sincerely,
Lou Alfano

Posted by: Lou Alfano | December 04, 2007 at 11:50 PM

Mr. Secretary,
I have read the Action Plan for Import Safety that was presented to the President and find it very uncanny how the plan ties in with my company. As noted in your blob posting as well as the report, the scope of this project is large enough that private sector inputs and assistance will be necessary. I feel that the actions discussed in the plan necessary in this global market environment. The nature of the issue drives government action, but with private sector cooperation we can achieve a system that is fast, efficient, and cost effective. This will ensure that US consumers will have confidence the products that they are purchasing without having to see a large increase in price. I am working with importers and manufacturers to provide them with an avenue for 3rd party compliance through accredited labs here in the US.

Keep up the work.

William Scruggs
President and CEO
Family Consumer Safety Group

Posted by: William Scruggs | January 02, 2008 at 02:39 PM