This approach assumes that all consumers want the same thing. As others have pointed out, the ‘consumer interest’ is not a monolithic interest which is easily identified. While some consumers may want safe, high quality products, other consumers may wish to sacrifice these qualities for a lower price tag.
Employers do not deliberately allow work conditions to exist which cause injury or illness. Safety is good business… The goal is to have meaningless standards eliminated and achieve a law which recognizes business efforts to provide safe work places and provides fair treatment for all.
[The Consumer Product Safety Act] provides no meaningful protection for trade secrets or confidential company information… this empty standard is patently dangerous to our competitive system.
Shoulder harnesses and head rests are complete wastes of money.
Present regulations have been effective in protecting human health and our food supply….We do not have a pesticide environmental crisis at this time.
There have been no reports of illness or death which can be attributed to pesticides when they were properly used and the precautions followed.
We feel that the new plant should have equipment installed to abate pollution that meets and exceeds the established standards. If I recognize what you are driving at, company XYZ could come out with a piece of equipment that could be extremely expensive that would eliminate all pollution whatsoever and if I were to agree with your question, that would mean that all of your industry would then have to buy that piece of equipment from company XYZ with the basis against all other companies that are producing pollution equipment. I don’t think that is the objective of free enterprise.
To the extent that [this legislation] seeks to make varying warranties fit into identical standards, it discourages competitive diversity from coming into play, and to that extent fails to serve the interests of either consumers or business.
[W]e believe that voluntary progress has been sufficient to warrant a continued extension of the legislative moratorium on warranties and guarantees. We believe that business should, and will, act to implement the ‘full disclosure’ warranties statement adopted last year by the Chamber.
[I]n striving to improve safety and healthful conditions in the workplace it is prudent—and it will be productive—to build upon the foundations of successful experiences of American industry working in partnership with State and private agencies. We seriously question whether certain of the measures embodied in the proposed legislation will not encumber rather than enhance progress in occupational safety and health.