From the article:
The law—known as Section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act—requires the agency, in most cases, to get permission from manufacturers before releasing their names or any information that could reveal their identities, even when a product is linked to injuries and deaths. And when the CPSC does announce an alert or recall, companies often can restrict the information that’s released and negotiate the language used.
Those measures took shape during the Reagan administration. According to Nancy Nord, who was the CPSC’s acting chairman from 2006 to 2009, they were in response to complaints that a company’s reputation could suffer unfairly if the CPSC didn’t give it a chance to review the agency’s safety concerns before they were made public. She thinks 6(b) is reasonable, satisfying both consumer and industry needs.
But some other members of the CPSC, including current ones, disagree. “We need the anti-consumer safety and anti-transparency requirements of Section 6(b) . . . to be eliminated,” said Elliot Kaye, the CPSC commissioner and former chairman, in early April at a subcommittee hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “People die because of Section 6(b). It is that simple.”
That’s right. There is a law on the books in the US, where a corporation has to give its approval before the public is told they are literally killing babies with their products by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). This is the entire point of the CPSC, and it was single handily undercut in this by that law.
This is why having lobbyists involved in the legislative process is a bad idea. Literally babies are dying, and there is a gag law preventing the public from knowing, and holding the corporation accountable.