I know everyone is probably gone for the Fourth, but a recall just flashed over my e-mail that I thought you might like more info about.

Bayside Furnishings of San Diego said yesterday it is recalling 9,350 LaJolla Boat and Pirates of the Carribean Twin Trundle beds after a 22-month-old boy died when the lid of a toy chest that is at the end of the bed fell on his neck and strangled him.

The beds were sold at Costco, Costco.com and furniture retail stores from January 2006 through May of this year for between $700 and $1,400.

Bayside is offering a repair kit.

For additional information, contact Bayside at (877) 494-2536 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at www.baysidefurnishings.com to register online for one.

There have been at least 10 other recalls of toy chests or cedar chests over the past decade because of entrapment or suffocation hazards. A child suffocated in a chest in 2005, and two others died in chest-related accidents in 2001--one from suffocation, and the other from a fall, according to Consumer Product Safety Commission spokesman Scott Wolfson.

There are safety standards for toy chests, albeit voluntary ones. Toy chests are required not to have a lock, to have ventilation holes and have hinges that don't allow the lid to drop.

When buying toy chests or other types of chests, be sure to look for those features.

Have a safe Fourth of July. See you back here on Monday.

Here's some interesting, and somewhat positive, data I recently came across.

According to TransUnion, one of the three major credit reporting bureaus, average credit card debt has declined for the first time since early 2007. Nationwide, the average debt per credit card borrower dropped 1.25 percent to $1,673 in the first quarter of this year from $1,694 in the previous quarter.

In the District, the average borrower had $1,884.79 in credit card debt in the first quarter, down from $1,971.25 in the last quarter of 2007.

The same trend held true for some Virginia and Maryland suburbs.

In Fairfax, for example, average credit card debt was $1,848.33 in the first quarter, down from $1,898.87 the quarter before.

Why the sudden pullback?

"It's probably a combination of things," said Jeff Morrison, manager of research and econometrics at TransUnion, in an interview this week. "A combination of consumer confidence and consumers looking ahead, and looking at gas prices. And they're pulling back on expenditures and catching up on what they have spent on."

But this may just be a temporary blip. Morrison said he expects the average debt to edge back up as increases in gas prices become more of a financial burden on borrowers.

"We see there's a good possibility that credit card debt will continue down next quarter and then tick up over time," he said.

Congress should consider legislation that would regulate credit card issuers' marketing tactics on college campuses, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, said during a meeting she convened on the topic Thursday.

"Students want and often need credit, but may not realize all the consequences of applying for or getting a credit card," she said.

A number of witnesses, including a college student and a representative from New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office, testified for and against legislation to control how credit card issuers market to college students.

Benjamin Lawsky, deputy counselor and special assistant to Cuomo, said the attorney general is aggressively investigating whether credit card marketers have offered payments to colleges in exchange for exclusive access to students and personal information, such as their e-mail addresses and phone numbers.

"There are highly lucrative, somewhat secret, exclusive marketing agreements at the schools with the credit card companies," he said.

U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy organization, earlier this year released a survey of 1,500 students at 40 colleges in 14 states in which nearly two in three students reported that they had at least one credit card. Fifty-five percent of cardholding students said they used their card for day-to-day expenses while nearly one-quarter said they pay their tuition with it. On average, those freshmen whose parents were not helping them with their bills had a balance of $1,301. Seniors had more than twice that, $2,623.

Nellie Mae, a student loan company, gathered similar data when it did a study of undergraduate credit card use in 2004. Seventy-six percent of undergraduates began that school year with credit cards, and the average balance was $2,169, lower than it had been in 2001. New numbers are expected later this spring.

Kenneth J. Clayton, senior vice president of the American Bankers Association, disputed that students handle credit cards poorly.

"Students handle credit as well as, and in some cases better than, the general adult population," he testified. "Banks have a vested interest in ensuring that the student's experience is a positive one, as the bank wants to build a productive, lifelong customer relationship that benefits both parties."

Maloney has introduced the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, which would crack down on a number of deceptive credit card practices.

I should probably call this entry retrospective blogging on the product safety bill conference since it took place at 4ish Wednesday and will continue after Congress returns from the July 4 recess.

Not much news came out of the event, where members from the House and Senate were supposed to resolve differences between each chamber's version of product safety reform legislation. They didn't finish Wednesday and will meet again in July.

Despite keeping us in suspense for who knows how much longer, the lawmakers were at least kind enough to have the meeting in a room big enough for the crowd that showed up. The line to get in was lengthy, with business lobbyists at the front of the pack (courtesy of a paid line place holder), the consumer advocates somewhere in the middle, and a bunch of journalists, including me, making up the caboose.

Inside, the members continued their habit of listing how many children and grandchildren they have. (You know because my childless friends are always offering my kid lead-chip cookies and BPA-and-J sandwiches. Kidding.)

Over the course of many hearings, this is what I've tallied up: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has a daughter who likes Barbie dolls. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) has two daughters, at least one of whom has donned a princess crown. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) has four kids and possibly three grandchildren (two were in utero when she referred to them during a hearing). And Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) has four grandchildren and a toddler named Jack--a fact he stated yesterday, which briefly sent the gears in my brain turning. (Answer: second marriage.)

The most lively debate was over a proposed ban of certain kinds of phthalates--chemicals used to make plastic malleable that have been linked to reproductive problems. One observer at the conference said afterward that it looked like the fix was in for a phthalate ban. We shall see!

The lawmakers did accomplish something. They signed off on 21 provisions that they agreed on. But just as a staffer began to name them, House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) interrupted to say the House members had three votes and had to leave, ending the proceedings then and there. A collective "Doh!" arose from the journo table. (I am referring to the table reporters are allowed to sit at for the duration of most hearings and other gatherings. Sort of like the kids' table at Thanksgiving.)

The list of approved items was liberated about an hour later. If you're curious what provisions have made it, you can read the list after the jump.

So I was watching the Today Show this morning with the babe and the hub (the hub was watching it to catch a glimpse of a Redskins player who was a groomsman in a Today Show-sponsored wedding) and I was pleasantly surprised to catch a segment starring Consumer Product Safety Commission spokeswoman Julie Vallese and an exploding watermelon.

The soon-to-be-exploded watermelon. (Annys Shin)

With July Fourth around the corner, the CPSC is out with its annual "fireworks can blow your fingers off" message. And what better way to get the attention of the target teen audience, or rather their parents (cause the kids probably aren't watching) than some sample explosions?

To show how powerful these suckers are, the CPSC folks first put a firework under a watermelon. I think the technical term for what happened next is kerplooey!

A dummy demonstrates what NOT to do with fireworks. (Annys Shin)

They then exploded another firework in front of a dummy.

The dummy wore a freshly pressed blue polo and khakis and seemed a tad over dressed in my opinion considering it was only there to get blown to bits. I guess a naked dummy might have been indecent and Today is a family show, after all, as correspondent Natalie Morales reminded the Naked Cowboy during an earlier segment.

As luck would have it, the explosion that followed did not expose any dummy flesh but did blow off its hands and half of its head. I think Harvey Keitel was supposed to show up at that point but those party poopers Matt and Meredith cut to commercial.

The dummy post-explosion, missing half his head. (Annys Shin)

Actually, now that I think about it, moms packing lunches are a more appropriate audience for the watermelon stunt since no one born after 1990 is likely to feel a twinge of nostalgia at the sight of an exploding Citrullus lanatus. (If you have a better synonym for watermelon, I'd like to hear it.)

Since the CPSC didn't use a Sledge-O-Matic or make Julie don a striped shirt or suspenders, the agency will probably escape a lawsuit from Gallagher, who, as the rest of you Baby Boomer and Gen Xers probably recall, sued his own brother for copying his watermelon-smashing schtick.

I am now waiting for the CPSC to use a giant couch to demonstrate the new furniture flammability standard.

Here's an interesting twist to a topic I wrote about on this blog not too long ago. It's about overdraft protection. When you overdraw your account, many banking institutions will cover that payment -- for a fee. Often it happens without your permission.

According to the Center for Responsible Lending, Americans 55 and older pay $4.5 billion in fees annually for overdraft loans they haven't asked for and typically don't want. Nearly $1 billion of that amount is taken from people who are heavily dependent on Social Security income.

Typically, the fee is $1.65 for every $1 advanced. Unauthorized overdrafts cost Americans $17.5 billion in fees for $15.8 billion advanced, the report said. And even though people at or near retirement age don't use plastic as much, they are still getting hit quite hard, the report found.

"Our research found that 84 percent of Americans 55 and over -- many of whom have successfully managed checking accounts their entire adult lives -- would prefer to choose whether they have overdraft coverage," said Leslie Parrish, senior researcher, who co-authored the report with Peter Smith.

The Federal Reserve is already looking into the overdraft fee issue.

Along with two other banking regulators -- the National Credit Union Administration and the Office of Thrift Supervision -- the Fed has proposed that all banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions give their customers the right to opt out of overdraft protection. The banks would also have to disclose on periodic statements the total amount assessed in overdraft and returned item fees. Right now, only those institutions that promote or advertise their overdraft protection programs have to do that.

But the authors of this study say that does not go far enough.

"The Fed must address these excessive bank fees and end this abuse of long-time and loyal customers, many on fixed incomes," Parrish said.

Wal-Mart held its first online chat with shoppers Thursday on its new Web site, www.makeyourdollarstretch.com. The guest chatter was Ellie Kay, who dug herself out of $40,000 in debt and now writes books about saving money.

The chat was the latest example of Wal-Mart's attempts to refresh its image under the new slogan, "Save Money. Live Better." (The old motto was "Always low prices. Always." Just in case you missed it.) For two hours, Kay fielded questions on everything from how to start a budget to paying for college tuition to filing bankruptcy -- though not in such a depressing order.

"Some of the questions that we had that came in were surprising, and we were also surprised that we didn't get questions that we expected," Kay told me after the chat.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa O'Brien said Kay received about 70 questions. She said they were not screened or changed before they were published online but that Kay was able to choose which questions to answer.

One question submitted did come from a woman who identified herself as a Wal-Mart employee in the company's Bentonville, Ark., headquarters who was retiring to become a stay-at-home mom. O'Brien said the chat was promoted among associates but they were not directed to participate.

More chats are likely to come, O'Brien said.

What do rubber duckies, shower curtains, and air fresheners have in common?

If you said phthalates, you'd be right!

The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Alliance for Healthy Homes is suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency saying it should require manufacturers to test household air fresheners for safety and to disclose their chemical ingredients. The lawsuit is based on a 2007 NRDC analysis of more than a dozen common household air fresheners, which found that most contained phthalates, chemicals that may affect hormones and reproductive development in children and infants.

The back story is this: The same three groups filed a petition last year asking EPA to test air fresheners for their health effect on people. The EPA rejected the petition but asked the air freshener makers to disclose their ingredients. They did that but not until recently. The three groups felt the disclosures were incomplete. The companies didn't want to divulge what goes into crafting the scent of a spring meadow for competitive reasons so both sides hit an impasse and the groups decided to sue.

The Consumer Specialty Product Association, the trade group for the makers of air fresheners (which is a $1.8 billion business -- who knew?) was none too happy about the report, the petition or the lawsuit. It released a page-long, single-spaced statement that you can read if you want after the jump. It boils down to this: "our products are tested extensively by industry and meet or exceed all federal and state regulatory requirements. That this is inadequate for NRDC and other select groups is no reason why EPA, and by extension the U.S. taxpayer, should devote additional time and money on an issue that has already been addressed."

Whether the EPA should spend more time on such matters as this is actually a topic of much discussion in Congress lately. There is a larger battle going on over the way the U.S. regulates chemicals and whether we should follow the Europeans and their more precautionary approach. Post reporter Lindsey Layton explains all that nicely here.

I'm going to take on the smaller issue of absorbing these reports and all the back-and-forth that goes along with them. Here's my take: Phthalates are ubiquitous. You can find them in lots of places but the product-by-product approach gives people the idea that if they throw out their shower curtain and rubber duckies and wipe down their diaper champ more often and chuck that scents stories CD, they'll be okay. Until next week, that is, when another report comes out and says there are phthalates in Common Object X. People want clear answers to questions, such as, Are my baby bottles okay to use as long as I don't put them in the dishwasher? Or, can I keep my shower curtain if my kid never uses that bathroom? Or do I have to throw ever piece of plastic out of my house?

Those are the kinds of questions that I get, anyway, from friends and acquaintances. And I don't blame them for being confused.

What do you make of this constant flurry of exposes on toxic chemicals in consumer products? And how many of your purchasing decisions lately have been affected by them?

I'm back from the City of Brotherly Love for my sister-in-law's wedding. And in my inbox this morning, I see the Great Plastic Safety Debate raged on in my absence.

The subject this time is shower curtains.

The opening salvo came from the Falls Church-based Center for Health and Environmental Justice, which put out a report saying that that new shower curtain smell is not so good for you. CHEJ hired an independent lab to test several shower curtains purchased at big box stores for various chemicals and heavy metals. The lab found the shower curtains contained phthalates, a chemical compound used to make soft plastic that may cause reproductive problems. The lab also found that the shower curtains released some of their chemical components into the air when exposed to heat and humidity.

But--and it's a pretty big but--the testing did not show that the shower curtains released phthalates.

In the report, the group explains the methodology used wasn't adequate to detect whether phthalates were being released.

When pressed about why the group didn't just wait to release the report until after it did further tests, CHEJ's Mike Schade said it didn't have the funding to do so and felt the chemicals the curtains did release were bad enough. Also, Congress just happened to be holding hearings last week on phthalates.

The report was dismissed by Consumer Product Safety Commission spokeswoman Julie Vallese who called its claims "phantasmagorical," thereby making herself a finalist for this year's Best Use of Vocabulary by a Spokesperson Award.

The no-proof-of-phthalate-release problem also became fodder for the American Chemistry Council and the Vinyl Institute (a.k.a. Big Shower Curtain), which see all such reports as part of a plot by enviros to whip us all into a needless paranoid frenzy.

Each group took a different tack.

The ACC sent an e-mail to reporters using the subject line "CORRECTION TO SHOWER CURTAIN SCARE STUDY" -- you know, cause nothing gets a reporter's attention like the C-word.

The e-mail was not a correction request, though. It was more of a screed against coverage of such reports. The group feels that journalists are not doing a good job scrutinizing those reports and spreading the word that the ACC says plastic shower curtains are safe.

Did I mention that the American Chemistry Council says plastic shower curtains are safe?

The group also said in a release that CHEJ was spreading misinformation by implying phthalates had something to do with new shower curtain smell. Phthalates don't even have an odor--a fact, the ACC said, "that any chemist knows."

Take that enviros and Periodic Table-hatas!

The Vinyl Institute dispensed with bashing journalists and anyone who got less than an A in chemistry by choosing instead to spin the report in a positive light. Their release, titled "Shower Curtains Declared Harmless," read as follows:

"Decades of research and use prove that shower curtains made of vinyl are safe, effective and deserve their popularity....Vinyl shower curtains are tough, easy to clean, and can be colored and patterned in endless ways, which have made them popular bathroom accessories for decades."

For some reason, reading that made me miss Phil Hartman.

Where this leaves average consumers, you tell me. The enviros and Big Shower Curtain are fighting for your soul. How are they doing? Do you feel like you are getting the information you need to make an informed choice?

The air conditioning in my condo died over the weekend. It sounded fine at first, humming away even as the temperature crept up to 75, 76, 77 degrees. Then it fell silent, and I began to sweat.

I called a maintenance company to repair the machine. An agent quoted me a price over the phone, and I was surprised when he mentioned a $10 fuel surcharge for driving the repair van to my house.

Ten dollars! It's not surprising to find fuel surcharges added to the price of your airline ticket or car rental. But I had never considered that the spike in gas prices could affect how comfortable I felt in my own home. It also made me wonder where else these surcharges may be waiting.

So I'm asking you to share your stories about fuel fees you've had to pay. If you don't mind being interviewed, please send us an e-mail at thecheckout@washpost.com with your name and contact info.

In the meantime, we're investing in some fans.