[PASSED] Consumer Product Safety

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Hello everyone, I have been participating in NationStates intermittently since 2006, but this is my first attempt at a World Assembly proposal. I wanted to post here to get some feedback, as well as see the level of support in the WA for a proposal of this nature. With that, I present "Consumer Product Safety" in its draft stage...

First Draft:

"Consumer Product Safety"
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Cool Egg Sandwich

ACKNOWLEDGING that a predominant role of this body is to promote the safety and security of its member nations and their citizens;

REALIZING that in many instances citizens of WA member nations are sustaining injury, illness, or even death directly related to unsafe consumer products;

RECOGNIZING the need for a regulatory body charged with maintaining safety standards of said consumer products;

The World Assembly,

ESTABLISHES a “Consumer Product Safety Commission”, hereafter CPSC, to protect citizens within WA member nations and maintain international consumer product safety standards;

DEFINES a “consumer product” as any good or product a consumer may purchase, i.e. toys, automobiles, household chemicals, electronics etc.;

DEFINES an “unsafe consumer product” as any consumer product that can pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure children, even while used properly and according to age / training requirements;

PROHIBITS manufacturers in member countries from producing consumer products that do not meet the said safety standards in the current form;

CHARGES the CPSC with the investigation of consumer products on an international scale, in order to identify unsafe consumer products and remove them from the market or modify their safety;

ALLOWS the CPSC to issue a recall of any consumer product, produced within any WA member nation, given reasonable evidence of its “unsafe” qualities;

DEFINES “reasonable evidence” as evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a product is unsafe, as defined by this resolution;

FURTHER ALLOWS the CPSC to impose financial penalties on manufacturers in WA member nations guilty of repeatedly producing “unsafe consumer products”;

STIPULATES that the amount and degree of the financial penalties will be at the sole discretion of the CPSC; however,

MANDATES that financial penalties may not be assessed by the CPSC on the first violation of consumer product safety standards;

FURTHER STIPULATES that funds received from CPSC violations will be placed in a ‘special’ fund, overseen by the WA, solely dedicated to providing benefits and/or reparations to citizens of WA member nations who have sustained injury, illness, or death from “unsafe consumer products”;

CLARIFIES that the CPSC, jointly with the World Assembly, has sole discretion in determining whether specific citizens of WA member nations have sustained injury, illness, and/or death from “unsafe consumer products”;

This Assembly,

URGES individual WA member nations to provide funds, where applicable, to facilitate CPSC organizational efforts, but also;

ALLOWS for the CPSC to operate with funds from the WA General Fund;

CONCLUDES that a CPSC will promote a higher level of consumer safety on an international level, leading to a decline in injuries and deaths associated with consumer products.

Here is the UPDATED version of the proposal, in its current form: Edited Further to reflect "distribution of goods"

"Consumer Product Safety"
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Cool Egg Sandwich



ACKNOWLEDGING that a predominant role of this body is to promote the safety and security of its member nations and their citizens;

REALIZING that in many instances citizens of WA member nations are sustaining injury, illness, or even death directly related to unsafe consumer products;

RECOGNIZING the need for a regulatory body charged with maintaining safety standards of said consumer products;

The World Assembly,

ESTABLISHES a “Consumer Product Safety Council”, hereafter CPSC, to maintain international consumer product safety standards;

DEFINES a “consumer product” as any article, or component thereof, produced or distributed for a consumer to purchase, i.e. toys, automobiles, household chemicals, electronics etc.; however, exempts any article not customarily intended for use, enjoyment, or consumption, by a consumer.

DEFINES an “unsafe consumer product” as any consumer product that can pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure a consumer, even while used properly and according to age / training requirements;

PROHIBITS manufacturers or distributors in member countries from producing and/or distributing consumer products that do not meet the said safety standards in the current form;

CHARGES the CPSC with the investigation of consumer products on an international scale, in order to identify unsafe consumer products and remove them from the market or modify their safety;

ALLOWS the CPSC to issue a recall of any consumer product, produced within any WA member nation, given reasonable evidence of its “unsafe” qualities;

DEFINES “reasonable evidence” as evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a product is unsafe, as defined by this resolution;

FURTHER ALLOWS the CPSC to impose financial penalties on manufacturers and/or distributors in WA member nations guilty of repeatedly producing and/or distrbuting “unsafe consumer products”;

STIPULATES that the amount and degree of the financial penalties will be at the sole discretion of the CPSC; however,

MANDATES that financial penalties may not be assessed by the CPSC on the first violation of consumer product safety standards;

FURTHER STIPULATES that funds received from CPSC violations will be placed in a ‘special’ fund, overseen by the WA, solely dedicated to providing benefits and/or reparations to citizens of WA member nations who have sustained injury, illness, or death from “unsafe consumer products”;


This Assembly,

URGES individual WA member nations to provide funds, where applicable, to facilitate CPSC organizational efforts, but also;

ALLOWS for the CPSC to operate with funds from the WA General Fund;

CONCLUDES that a CPSC will promote a higher level of consumer safety on an international level, leading to a decline in injuries and deaths associated with consumer products.

Most recent version. Edited to reflect only international commerce, CPSC role limited:

“Consumer Product Safety”
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Cool Egg Sandwich


ACKNOWLEDGING that a predominant role of this body is to promote and protect the general welfare of the citizens of its member nations;

REALIZING that in many instances citizens of WA member nations are sustaining injury, illness, or even death directly related to unsafe consumer products;

RECOGNIZING the need for a regulatory body charged with maintaining safety standards of said consumer products;

The World Assembly,

ESTABLISHES a “Consumer Product Safety Council”, hereafter CPSC, to maintain international consumer product safety standards;

DEFINES a “consumer product” as any article, or component thereof, produced or distributed for a consumer to purchase, i.e. toys, automobiles, household chemicals, electronics etc.; however, exempts any article not customarily intended for use, enjoyment, or consumption by a consumer.

DEFINES an “unsafe consumer product” as any consumer product that can pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure a consumer, even while used properly and according to age / training requirements;

PROHIBITS the import to and export from WA member nations of consumer products that qualify as “unsafe consumer products” according to the terms of this legislation;

CHARGES the CPSC with the investigation of consumer products on an international scale in order to identify “unsafe consumer products” and prevent their import to and export from WA member nations;

FURTHER CHARGES the CPSC with assisting citizens of WA member nations seeking financial compensation, legal recourse, or product recall associated with “unsafe consumer products”;

STRONGLY URGES member nations to prohibit manufacturers and distributors from producing and/or distributing “unsafe consumer products”;

STRONGLY URGES member nations to impose financial penalties on manufacturers and/or distributors guilty of producing and/or distributing “unsafe consumer products”;

URGES individual WA member nations to provide funds, where applicable, to facilitate CPSC organizational efforts;

CONCLUDES that a CPSC will promote a higher level of consumer safety on an international level, leading to a decline in injuries and deaths associated with consumer products.

Rgds.,

[Grays Harbor]

It has promise, I'll say that. I'm not sure about 'Human Rights' as the category though. Perhaps 'Social Justice' or 'Advancement of Industry'?

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Well, that seems to be the main problem with the proposal at the moment. It was rejected, in a previous state, under the assertion that it did not improve human rights, but I am kind of struggling to see which other category this proposal should be filed under.

As for Social Justice, this resolution does not increase income equality or 'really' promote social justice. As for furthering industry, this proposal does nothing to increase industrial presence in any fashion, in fact one would think that it would decrease industry, if anything.

Thanks for the reply, esteemed Ambassador.

[Grays Harbor]

It has always been our opinion that improving products, makeing them better, is not a detriment to industry.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

MANDATES that individuals, corporations, and/or governmental entities within WA member nations may not produce “unsafe consumer products”;

I'd be careful about this because that would ban hobbyists! Instead, try:

PROHIBITS manufacturers in member countries from producing consumer products that do not meet the said safety standards in the current form;

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Yes, but as this proposal infringes on the 'right' of businesses to produce 'unsafe' consumer products, I would be of the opinion that many pro-business WA nations would be opposed, citing unnecessary regulation.

To your point that increasing the quality of consumer products will increase the strength of industry, I would certainly agree with you. In the long term, businesses would strengthen / bolster their customer base through responsible production. In the short term, however, businesses producing 'unsafe' consumer products would suffer, if for no other reason than potential recalls of their product.

I suppose I could adopt an 'Advancement of Industry' category for this proposal, but I am just not sure how to explicitly state the argument that 'with higher production quality of goods, consumption will rise and contribute to the Advancement of industry'...

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

MANDATES that individuals, corporations, and/or governmental entities within WA member nations may not produce “unsafe consumer products”;

I'd be careful about this because that would ban hobbyists! Instead, try:

PROHIBITS manufacturers in member countries from producing consumer products that do not meet the said safety standards in the current form;

Thanks for the suggestion. When I was drafting the proposal, I was concerned that my wording on those particular entities would become vague, or allow loopholes. This seems to clear it up. I suppose replacing "individuals, corporations, and/or governmental entities" with "manufacturers" in every instance would provide more clarity.

I appreciate your input, Ambassador of Charlotte Ryberg...

[Grays Harbor]

Yes, but as this proposal infringes on the 'right' of businesses to produce 'unsafe' consumer products, I would be of the opinion that many pro-business WA nations would be opposed, citing unnecessary regulation.

To your point that increasing the quality of consumer products will increase the strength of industry, I would certainly agree with you. In the long term, businesses would strengthen / bolster their customer base through responsible production. In the short term, however, businesses producing 'unsafe' consumer products would suffer, if for no other reason than potential recalls of their product.

I suppose I could adopt an 'Advancement of Industry' category for this proposal, but I am just not sure how to explicitly state the argument that 'with higher production quality of goods, consumption will rise and contribute to the Advancement of industry'...

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Long term goals are what should be emphasized. There will be short term difficulties and recalls with or without this, and the majority of corporations do not, to our understanding, intentionally put out defective or unsafe products. Having set standards for international business, for one thing, will make businesses stronger in that they will have one more tool at their disposal for marketing and sales if nothing else along with having better products.

It should be remembered that we are one the more steadfastly conservative ambassadors here in the GA, and that we would not knowingly support anything that would harm business. So, if we tentatively appear to support this, it must therefore be something positive for business in our view.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

I should probably add a clause somewhere in the beginning of the proposal. Something like.......



BELIEVING that the establishment of international consumer product safety standards will increase both the integrity and strength of industry on an international scale;




What say you, esteemed Ambassadors?

[Architektonikon]

First, I would like to state that I found this proposal to be well written, and I feel it should be taken very seriously by the WA. Second is with regard to Charlotte Ryberg's quibble above and the Hobbyist objection. Could this not be dodged by changing the language from strict 'manufacture' to 'manufacture and sale'. I thought this is what the author intended, i.e., I can make a terribly dangerous 'battle bot' in my free time, yet when I produce and sell them to children is the problem. I found the above to be what the author intended; it, nevertheless, could be made more explicit and clear.

A Potential Objection:
I am concerned with the open question of 'to what' child or person. A matchbox car, for instance, is perfectly safe for a 10 year old, yet it poses a serious threat to an infant as a choking hazard. As the proposal currently stands, it seems that the above example of the matchbox car would fall under both a safe and unsafe toy--safe with respect to age to the former and not in the latter. Or, another example could be of dangerous machinery that requires training before use; namely, if one has had the proper training X is safe, but if not, unsafe. In this case, a heavy piece of machinery is generally dangerous to the public but not to a select few. In both of the two examples, the proposal seems to leave an issue unaddressed, i.e., the relativity of danger and dangerous situations, objects, etc.

Suggestion If Objection is Valid:
Some sort of clause which can sweep the objection and similar ones under the proverbial rug (not has to hide them but as a back door in order to assuage these worries). Maybe "in accordance with instructions or fore-warnings", e.g., 'the contains of the this cup may be hot'. Hence, your coffee cup should not be recalled by the suggested proposal, whereas before someone could argue that it is dangerous.

Kind Regards,
ARCHITEKTONIKON

[Grays Harbor]

Decent idea, but that seems to be getting into "Circular saws should not be used for beard trimming" types of consumer warnings. Although valid, as we are certain at least one moron somewhere has tried to use a circular saw for that, to regulate that type of minutia could be counter-productive. Perhaps just include a statement that warnings and use should be noted for "age appropriateness" and "training required"?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I'd be careful about this because that would ban hobbyists! Instead, try:

Thanks for the suggestion. When I was drafting the proposal, I was concerned that my wording on those particular entities would become vague, or allow loopholes. This seems to clear it up. I suppose replacing "individuals, corporations, and/or governmental entities" with "manufacturers" in every instance would provide more clarity.

I appreciate your input, Ambassador of Charlotte Ryberg...

In fact the responsibility for consumer product safety would be on the manufacturers only, honoured ambassador.

[Quadrimmina]

It has always been our opinion that improving products, makeing them better, is not a detriment to industry.

Imposing penalties on bad products is indeed though, no?

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

It has always been our opinion that improving products, makeing them better, is not a detriment to industry.

Imposing penalties on bad products is indeed though, no?

Yes, it could be seen as being detrimental to industry, but if you read the back and forth between myself and the Ambassador from Grays Harbor, 'we' came to the conclusion that through more 'responsible' production, consumers will be more inclined to purchase consumer products. At least, that's the goal.

Of course, punishing those who manufacture 'unsafe' consumer products should have the long-term effect of rejuvenating industry through an image of responsibility. Furthermore, consumers would feel 'safer' purchasing all different types of consumer goods if they were 'guaranteed' that those product would be safe, or their well-being would be taken care of in the event they were 'unsafe'.


As to Architektonikon's point, I would like to thank the esteemed Ambassador for his suggestion regarding age-specific limitations to consumer products, and the 'relativity of danger' to differing age groups.

I believe a nice 'fix' for that would be, as Arhitektonikon said, to include a clause that exempts manufactured products, and their manufacturer, if said products were used 'improperly' or by those not qualified to use them.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Okay, well I have edited the proposal a bit. Here is an updated version for ye Ambassadors to feast thine eyes...

"Consumer Product Safety"
Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Tort Reform
Proposed by: Cool Egg Sandwich


ACKNOWLEDGING that a predominant role of this body is to promote the safety and security of its member nations and their citizens;

REALIZING that in many instances citizens of WA member nations are sustaining injury, illness, or even death directly related to unsafe consumer products;

BELIEVING that the establishment of international consumer product safety standards will increase both the integrity and strength of industry on an international scale;

RECOGNIZING the need for a regulatory body charged with maintaining safety standards of said consumer products;

The World Assembly,

ESTABLISHES a “Consumer Product Safety Commission”, hereafter CPSC, to protect citizens within WA member nations and maintain international consumer product safety standards;

DEFINES a “consumer product” as any good or product a consumer may purchase, i.e. toys, automobiles, household chemicals, electronics etc.;

DEFINES an “unsafe consumer product” as any consumer product that can pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure children, even while used properly and according to age / training requirements;

PROHIBITS manufacturers in member countries from producing consumer products that do not meet the said safety standards in the current form;

CHARGES the CPSC with the investigation of consumer products on an international scale, in order to identify unsafe consumer products and remove them from the market or modify their safety;

ALLOWS the CPSC to issue a recall of any consumer product, produced within any WA member nation, given reasonable evidence of its “unsafe” qualities;

DEFINES “reasonable evidence” as evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a product is unsafe, as defined by this resolution;

FURTHER ALLOWS the CPSC to impose financial penalties on manufacturers in WA member nations guilty of repeatedly producing “unsafe consumer products”;

STIPULATES that the amount and degree of the financial penalties will be at the sole discretion of the CPSC; however,

MANDATES that financial penalties may not be assessed by the CPSC on the first violation of consumer product safety standards;

FURTHER STIPULATES that funds received from CPSC violations will be placed in a ‘special’ fund, overseen by the WA, solely dedicated to providing benefits and/or reparations to citizens of WA member nations who have sustained injury, illness, or death from “unsafe consumer products”;

This Assembly,

URGES individual WA member nations to provide funds, where applicable, to facilitate CPSC organizational efforts, but also;

ALLOWS for the CPSC to operate with funds from the WA General Fund;

CONCLUDES that a CPSC will promote a higher level of consumer safety on an international level, leading to a decline in injuries and deaths associated with consumer products.

[Flibbleites]

Okay, well I have edited the proposal a bit. Here is an updated version for ye Ambassadors to feat thine eyes...

"Consumer Product Safety"
Category: Advancement of Industry
Strength: Mild

Problem, the Advancement of Industry category doesn't have strength, it has Area of Effect. Your choices are: Environmental Deregulation, Labor Deregulation, Protective Tariffs and Tort Reform.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

I apologize Mr. Flibble, and I thank you for your divine interjection on my behalf. I am relatively new to the experience of proposing legislation in the World Assembly, and I foolishly missed the 'Area of Effect' field.

I have a question: Since part of the legislation establishes a 'special fund' for the sole purpose of dispensing reparations to victims of injury, illness, and/or death, wouldn't this classify as Tort Reform?

Ambassadors, your input is greatly appreciated...

Rgds.,

[Bears Armed]

I apologize Mr. Flibble, and I thank you for your divine interjection on my behalf. I am relatively new to the experience of proposing legislation in the World Assembly, and I foolishly missed the 'Area of Effect' field.

I have a question: Since part of the legislation establishes a 'special fund' for the sole purpose of dispensing reparations to victims of injury, illness, and/or death, wouldn't this classify as Tort Reform?

Ambassadors, your input is greatly appreciated...

Rgds.,

For 'Tort Reform', it has to make suing companies more difficult/unusual. Perhaps if you made submitting goods for assessment by your suggested commitee optional, but stated that if any goods passed by the committee did then prove faulty it was only the committee (rather than the manufacturer or supplier) who could be sued?

Incidentally, bearing in mind that many nations probably have organisations of their own for such purposes already, perhaps this should only apply to goods being sold across national borders?

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Well, I was thinking about Tort Reform earlier, and I now understand that one of the main arguments for 'reform' is the economic concern. I believe that, if by having the dispensation of funds to 'victims' at the sole discretion of a joint WA / CPSC committee, therefore circumventing expensive litigation costs, this legislation could be considered 'tort reform'.

As to your point regarding this resolution only applying to international / inter-regional distribution of goods, I firmly believe that an umbrella 'cover-all' resolution establishing an international body would be in the NS world's best interest. Furthermore, having a firm definition of 'unsafe consumer product' would put industry on the same level 'playing field', having to produce goods to an agreed-upon, international standard.

Honored Ambassadors, let me know what you think about these suggestions.


Rgds.,

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

How about something like this?



CLARIFIES that the CPSC, jointly with the World Assembly, has sole discretion in determining whether specific citizens of WA member nations have sustained injury, illness, and/or death from “unsafe consumer products”;




Does that, albeit indirectly, qualify this proposal as 'tort reform'? Since the determination of whether specific citizens are 'victims' of unsafe consumer products is left to the discretion of the CPSC / WA, this proposal should qualify as tort reform since this process would circumvent litigation costs associated with this type of scenario.

[Intellect and the Arts]

Without specifying anything that specifically protects companies from litigation, this doesn't qualify for Tort Reform. It does, however, qualify for Social Justice. A more thorough reading of the definitions and whatnot in the Rules for GA Proposals shows that Social Justice covers proposals that promote general well-being while imposing regulations on industry and commerce. Economic freedoms go down, and public welfare funding goes up. That's exactly what your proposal effects. A Tort Reform proposal would increase industry freedoms, not impose further regulations on them, and it would do so explicitly.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Without specifying anything that specifically protects companies from litigation, this doesn't qualify for Tort Reform. It does, however, qualify for Social Justice. A more thorough reading of the definitions and whatnot in the Rules for GA Proposals shows that Social Justice covers proposals that promote general well-being while imposing regulations on industry and commerce. Economic freedoms go down, and public welfare funding goes up. That's exactly what your proposal effects. A Tort Reform proposal would increase industry freedoms, not impose further regulations on them, and it would do so explicitly.

Ambassador, your input is greatly appreciated on this proposal. My intentions with this proposal were to promote responsible manufacture of 'safe' consumer goods and, in turn, promote a higher level of consumption within WA member nations. As to your point regarding the 'Social Justice' category, I would like to thank you for your advice.

I suppose trying to 'lump it in' as tort reform, I was hoping to appease the myriad pro-business nations in the WA universe, but this proposal "is what it is"....

Thanks for your input, Ambassador, I shall make changes where applicable. In closing, might I ask what your level of support would be for a proposal of this nature?


Rgds.,

[Intellect and the Arts]

Without specifying anything that specifically protects companies from litigation, this doesn't qualify for Tort Reform. It does, however, qualify for Social Justice. A more thorough reading of the definitions and whatnot in the Rules for GA Proposals shows that Social Justice covers proposals that promote general well-being while imposing regulations on industry and commerce. Economic freedoms go down, and public welfare funding goes up. That's exactly what your proposal effects. A Tort Reform proposal would increase industry freedoms, not impose further regulations on them, and it would do so explicitly.

Ambassador, your input is greatly appreciated on this proposal. My intentions with this proposal were to promote responsible manufacture of 'safe' consumer goods and, in turn, promote a higher level of consumption within WA member nations. As to your point regarding the 'Social Justice' category, I would like to thank you for your advice.

I suppose trying to 'lump it in' as tort reform, I was hoping to appease the myriad pro-business nations in the WA universe, but this proposal "is what it is"....

Thanks for your input, Ambassador, I shall make changes where applicable. In closing, might I ask what your level of support would be for a proposal of this nature?


Rgds.,

You are more than welcome, Ambassador. I endeavor to provide assistance whenever I believe myself sufficiently informed to provide it, and I am always glad when my advice is so well received.

As to the matter of support, while I would be more enthused to provide my support to a true Tort Reform proposal on the subject of frivolous and predatory complaint-based litigation, I believe I will most likely be satisfied enough with this proposal, upon its arrival in the public voting chamber, to voice my and my nation's support and pen my vote in its favor. This is, of course, assuming substantial changes aren't made before that time which would prevent my being able to so do with a clear conscience and intact sense of ethical responsibility.

Edit: By the by, I'm fairly certain the correct strength for what you wish to achieve would be "Significant", not "Mild".

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

I would be more enthused to provide my support to a true Tort Reform proposal on the subject of frivolous and predatory complaint-based litigation, I believe I will most likely be satisfied enough with this proposal, upon its arrival in the public voting chamber, to voice my and my nation's support and pen my vote in its favor. This is, of course, assuming substantial changes aren't made before that time which would prevent my being able to so do with a clear conscience and intact sense of ethical responsibility.

Edit: By the by, I'm fairly certain the correct strength for what you wish to achieve would be "Significant", not "Mild".

At the moment, I am pretty satisfied with what the proposal can accomplish. It seems there is, at least, a moderate level of support for some legislation governing the 'safe' production of manufactured goods.

My main concern is actually determining the category in which I should file this proposal. As you said, 'Social Justice' seems to be the most obvious choice; however, I fail to see how this proposal "reduc[es] income inequality"...


Rgds.,

[Intellect and the Arts]

I would be more enthused to provide my support to a true Tort Reform proposal on the subject of frivolous and predatory complaint-based litigation, I believe I will most likely be satisfied enough with this proposal, upon its arrival in the public voting chamber, to voice my and my nation's support and pen my vote in its favor. This is, of course, assuming substantial changes aren't made before that time which would prevent my being able to so do with a clear conscience and intact sense of ethical responsibility.

Edit: By the by, I'm fairly certain the correct strength for what you wish to achieve would be "Significant", not "Mild".

At the moment, I am pretty satisfied with what the proposal can accomplish. It seems there is, at least, a moderate level of support for some legislation governing the 'safe' production of manufactured goods.

My main concern is actually determining the category in which I should file this proposal. As you said, 'Social Justice' seems to be the most obvious choice; however, I fail to see how this proposal "reduc[es] income inequality"...


Rgds.,

By ensuring that all products must be made to minimum safety specifications, you ensure that those able only to afford the most cheaply made products don't, by nature of being poor, run the risk of receiving products so priced because the company that made them cut corners during production. Both the poor and the well-off will be afforded the peace of mind that comes with knowing the adage "you get what you pay for" applies to the inclusion of features and reliable customer support rather than variable levels of consumer hazard. In that way, you reduce income inequality.