If you haven't noticed, I've taken a hiatus to help cover the economic crisis but will sometimes resurface here when news warrants.

What has lured me back today is a recall of 3,000 "Newport" cribs and 6,000 matching furniture pieces made by Munire Furniture of Piscataway, N.J. for having lead paint in excess of federal limits.

The paint in question was a red paint underneath a darker top coating--still accessible of course, especially by teething babes and toddlers who like to gnaw on the rails.

The cribs cost about $600 a pop and the matching furniture had price tags between $700 to $1000. They were sold between April 2006 and November 2008 in specialty children's furniture stores.

The company says it has received one report of a child having ingested lead and being diagnosed with lead poisoning.

What I found interesting is that the Munire site contains the following statement:

You can have peace of mind that all Muniré products are coated with finishes that are in compliance with Federal Regulation 16CFR1303 for lead content and have been certified as such by Intertek, a testing laboratory recognized by both the American Society for Testing and Materials and the Consumer Products Safety Commission. In addition, we meet or exceed every federal safety standard and are approved by the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA).

So how did they all miss the lead paint, then? I'd be curious to know how many samples were tested, how those samples were chosen, and more about who wielded the lead paint brush.

Independent testing and certification are also a big part of the new product safety law.
In fact, the CPSC is collecting comments right now on the matter

Go to www.cpsc.gov for more info on the recall. You can read the request for comments here.
.

U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is calling on the nation's credit card companies to comply with federal regulators' new rules against "unfair and deceptive practices" sooner than they have to.

Last week, the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administration finalized a new set of regulations that would ban such practices as raising interest rates on existing balances unless a payment was more than 30 days late, charging late fees without giving the borrower a reasonable amount of time to pay and applying payments so that debts with higher interest rates are repaid last.

But the rules won't go into effect until July 1, 2010, a decision that angered many consumer groups.

"Because of the great danger facing our economy, it is important that you institute the protections, as outlined in the recent regulations, as soon as possible," Menendez, a member of the Banking Committee and author of the Credit Card Reform Act wrote. "In this current economic climate, many families are struggling to pay their bills on time and are making enormous sacrifices in order to keep up with their payments. But without relief, between today and a year from next July, the current economy combined with the continuation of these harmful practices may make it impossible for these families to continue to pay their bills on time."

Menendez sent the letter last week to the chief executive officers of American Express, Bank of America Corp., JP Morgan Chase & Co., Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup Inc., and Discover Financial Service.

Menendez's Credit Card Reform Act would prohibit other practices not covered by the new regulations, such as aggressive marketing to college students.

Some members of Congress have also said they plan to introduce their own bills next year to codify the Fed's rules and ban other unfair practices sooner than July 1, 2010.

Product safety is mostly not funny. So here's a rare bit of levity to brighten your day, courtesy of Ed Mierzwinski over at U.S. PIRG.

Apparently, Saturday Night Live used the advocacy group's Annual Trouble in Toyland report to make a joke.

It's actually PIRG's second mention on SNL, as Ed will proudly tell you.

A brief history of PIRG pop culture references follows:

We're proud to have had our work hit a few other popular shows over the years. "What are balloons?" was once the Final Jeopardy answer (in a special kids' tournament on the show) to the question: "PIRG finds these to be the worst choking hazard." And about 6-7 years ago, the plot of Law & Order featured a visit to NYPIRG's offices after the murder of a NYPIRG intern who'd been conducting an investigation into dangerous practices. The late actor so associated with the show, Jerry Orbach, uttered the immortal (to us, anyway) line: "NYPIRG? What's that?"

Banks received an estimated $1.97 billion in overdraft protection fees in 2006, representing 74 percent of the $2.66 billion in service charges on deposit accounts that they reported, according to a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation study released this week.

In fact, total overdraft fee income made up about 6 percent of the total net operating revenues earned by banks.

The findings confirmed that overdraft programs have become lucrative for banks even as consumer advocates have fought against them because they typically come with significant fees.

Consumer advocates, as well as the Federal Reserve, have especially criticized banks for automatically enrolling customers in such programs, which are triggered when there are insufficient funds in the account to cover a transaction. The Fed has proposed a rule that would force banks to give customers the ability to opt out of overdraft programs.

The agency gathered data from a survey of 462 FDIC-supervised banks. The FDIC also looked at customer account and transaction-level data from a smaller set of 39 financial institution.

Among the findings:

· Most banks -- 75.1 percent -- automatically enrolled customers in their automated overdraft programs.

·Automated overdraft usage fees ranged from $10 to $38. The median fee was $27. About one-fourth of the surveyed banks assessed additional fees on accounts that remained in negative balance status.

· Accounts held by customers in low-income areas were more likely than accounts in higher-income areas to incur overdraft charges. More than 38 percent of low-income accounts had at least one overdraft transaction, compared with 22 percent of upper-income accounts.

· Younger people were more likely to incur overdraft fees. Among young adult accounts, 46.4 percent triggered overdraft protection, compared with 12.2 percent of accounts held by seniors (over age 62) and 31.9 percent of accounts held by other adults.

Consumer advocates praised the report.

"The FDIC report exposes unfair banking practices, exorbitant rates for automated overdraft loans, and bank practices that maximize fee revenue from overdrawn consumers who are often struggling to make ends meet," said Jean Ann Fox, director of Financial Services for the Consumer Federation of America.

You think your budget is tight this Christmas. Just think how the poor folks suffered in 1780.

That is the year the lyrics to the popular "Twelve Days of Christmas" were written, at least according to Wikipedia. Among the many presents that my poor true love had to dig up were five golden rings, seven lords a-leaping and 12 drummers drumming -- and this was way before Life Took Visa!

In today's dollars, the full set of items would cost you $21,080.10, according to an in-depth analysis by PNC Bank this week. That's an 8 percent increase over last year, driven by a 33 percent jump in the price of seven swans a-swimming to $5,600 because of their increasing scarcity.

However, there is a silver -- or rather, gold -- lining. As luxury retail prices fall in light of weak consumer demand, the cost of five golden rings has dropped from $395 to $349.95, according to the PNC analysis.

How important are maids a-milking and turtledoves to the spirit of the season? The bank's economists also share a little love advice for free: "True Loves may want to budget a little more carefully this year in order to purchase all the items in this song."

If you think you're the only one losing money in your 401(k), think again.

In its analysis of 2.7 million employees' plans, Hewitt Associates, a global human resources consulting company, found that the average 401(k) balance dropped 14 percent in 2008 to $68,000, down from $79,000 last year. In just two months, on average, employees have lost 18 percent of their assets, with some losing up to 30 percent.

This is how American workers are responding: They're moving their 401(k) retirement savings into less risky investment funds. According to a study released this week, the amount of 401(k) assets in equities, or stocks, is at an all-time low, with only 53.8 percent, on average, compared with 68.1 percent a year ago. That is also down from its high of 74.2 percent in 2000.

The number of employees making trades has also gone up, to 19.3 percent this year from 18.7 percent in 2007. To date, 5.3 percent of employee's 401(k) savings is being traded compared with 3.5 percent last year.

And the number of people pulling money out of their 401(k)'s is also increasing. More than 6 percent withdrew money from their 401(k)'s, up from 5.4 percent last year. Much of that comes from hardship withdrawals rather than loans. Withdrawals are much harder to get and come with severe tax penalties. Employees who take withdrawals also cannot contribute to their 401(k)'s for six months.

"Because the credit crisis has made borrowing from financial institutions more difficult, we're seeing more employees turn to their 401(k)'s to get the money they need to help them get by," said Pamela Hess, director of retirement research for Hewitt Associates.

Some somewhat promising news: Only 4 percent of employees have terminated their 401(k) plans altogether.

Not sure how this jibes with the Food and Drug Administration's recent risk assessment which said it was "unable to establish any level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns" but you be the judge!

From Bloomberg News Service :

By Justin Blum

Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The industrial chemical melamine has been found in infant formula made in the U.S. in low amounts that pose no health concern, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The finding was expected because of the chemicals use in can liners and manufacturing, said Stephanie Kwisnek, an FDA spokeswoman, in a telephone interview.

She said it was trace amounts and she didn't know which companies products tested positive.

Melamine-tainted milk products sickened more than 50,000 children in China since September, and several died. Products from China that contain milk products are being blocked at U.S. ports until tests show they aren't tainted with melamine, the FDA said earlier this month.

We've all seen that line, flashing across the screen in tiny print during some infomercial as a svelte young gal or guy explains they lost a gazillion pounds by trying the Flabinator or some other drug and/or exercise device.

The Federal Trade Commission wants to know what you think about some changes the commission has proposed to its guidance on advertising endorsements and testimonials.

Among the substantive changes the FTC wants is to make advertisers that use a testimonial of an atypical experience to clearly tell consumers what the typical results would be, rather than just flash these three familiar words across the screen.

Surveys of consumers cited by the FTC show that when many people see testimonials, they tend to believe that the experience of the person giving it is what they would experience - even when that disclaimer "results may vary" or "results not typical" is included.

Comments have to be in by Jan. 30, 2009.

You can submit written comments electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer to "Endorsement Guides Review, Project No. P034520." Comments will be placed on the public record, including on the publicly accessible FTC website, and therefore should not include any sensitive or confidential information.

You can read the proposed changes here.

So some eagle-eyed observers of recall releases noticed a change in the boilerplate about the Consumer Product Safety Commission that runs at the end of them.

This is the old version:

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $800 billion annually. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire,electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

This is the new version:

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools,cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer
products over the past 30 years.

Basically what changed is the boilerplate no longer says the CPSC has jurisdiction over 15,000 products, just thousands of products, and it no longer gives a tally of the economic cost defective and dangerous products.

So we bugged agency spokeswoman Julie Vallese. (Yeah, we bug her a lot.)

She explained that it was changed within the past month on every single release on the CPSC Web site because the number of product categories the CPSC oversees is "old, out of date and may not be factually accurate." The number has likely grown but the agency isn't sure by how much.

As for the second figure, the $800 billion in annual costs, no one could figure out the basis for it. Both figures were yanked from information sent to Capitol Hill, so it was decided to do the same with all agency boilerplate. "It's just been made more generic," she said.

Earlier this week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's General Counsel issued a legal opinion laying out how the agency plans to enforce the temporary ban on certain kinds of phthalates in teethers, pacifiers and other children's products. The ban was mandated by the new product safety law that was enacted in August.

Phthalates are used to make soft plastic and have been linked to reproductive problems.

The CPSC decided that the ban would apply to products made after Feb. 10 when the ban is to take effect. This was a huge relief to manufacturers still grappling with how to comply with the rest of the law. I have heard anecdotes of businesses that have been testing like crazy because they thought the phthalate ban was going to apply retroactively to products made before Feb. 10. That is how the CPSC chose to enforce the new stricter lead limits and a comment by a CPSC official at a September meeting left everyone with that impression.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who played a key role in getting the phthalate ban included in the product safety law, was not pleased with the CPSC's decision, to say the least.

She sent a letter to the agency on Friday, the main text of which follows:

Your recent opinion that purports to interpret the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to allow the continued sale of children's toys and child care products that contain harmful phthalates beyond February 10, 2009 violates the clear language of that Act.

The Feinstein-Boxer provision of the law is clear: "Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute in commerce, or import into the United States any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent" of certain types of phthalates (section 108 (a) & (b) (1)).

I can assure you it was the intent of Congress to ban the sale of any children's toy or child care article containing certain phthalates after 180 days post-enactment. Any other interpretation has no basis in fact.

The ban clearly includes toys and child care articles produced both before and after the enactment date of the legislation. Allowing these harmful products to remain on store shelves places children in danger and does a disservice to the American consumer.

Given the importance of this critical health and safety issue, I am asking that you immediately withdraw your opinion rather than put our children at risk.

What happens now? We'll have to wait and see.

UPDATE: So the CPSC's response boils down to "we're just following what Congress wrote."

While Boxer quoted from the provision in the law about the ban in her letter, if you keep reading there are conflicting provisions in the same section that lead to the General Counsel's interpretation, said agency spokeswoman Julie Vallese.

"Because Congress wrote it, it's not for the CPSC to change," she said. "If it's not written as Congress intended, it's up to them to fix it."