Last week was the first week CPSC has said anything about the WCMA/ANSI standard that is under the canvass process as I am writing this. I wanted to share this with the world since I don’t think this will hit the papers.
Every once in a while we will take a trip to the store and walk through the window covering section to see if things have changed on boxed window coverings. Today we walked through Kmart and found Nein Made window blinds in boxes of all sizes. All of the window blinds had the same packaging. On the front of the boxes it reads, “child safety wand enclosed” making it seem that there are no cords on the product. As … Read More
PFWBS objected to the 2011 ANSI standard written by the WCMA yesterday. There are numerous reasons why PFWBS rejected the standard.
There are several news articles and emails going around with false information in them. Let me start with the WSJ article called A rule of Blind Injustice. “The problem with blinds, according to safety advocates, is that the cords can be a temptation to young children, ensnaring or strangling them if they become entangled. While the industry has adopted voluntary standards for reducing the risk to children, the agency says that improving safety and reducing the hazard isn’t enough. It … Read More
Consumer Groups Walk Out of Failed Window Covering Standards Process Flawed Year –Long Process Has Not Eliminated Strangulation Risk
This past week I attended the WCMA stakeholder meeting at the Consumer Product Safety Commission headquarters in Bethesda Maryland. During the meeting the Industry promised to “reduce or minimize” the hazards associated with window covering products. We believe that they can eliminate ALL hazards and so does Inez Tennenbaum.
CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum insisted consumer advocates be included on the committee updating the standard. But the advocates — including representatives of Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America and Parents for Window Blind Safety — say the rule was already written by the time they got involved and their votes to reject the rule had no effect. “It was window dressing to allow us to participate in the process,” says Carol Pollack-Nelson, a psychologist and consumer advocate.