Bill Overview
Title: Reese's Law
Description: This act requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to establish a product safety standard with respect to batteries that pose an ingestion hazard (i.e., button cell or coin batteries) and consumer products containing the batteries. Specifically, the batteries and consumer products with these batteries must include a warning label that clearly identifies the hazard of ingestion and instructs consumers to keep the batteries out of the reach of children, seek immediate medical attention if a battery is ingested, and follow any other consensus medical advice. Consumer products containing the batteries must also include a battery compartment that eliminates or adequately reduces the risk of injury from battery ingestion by children who are six years of age or younger. Additionally, such batteries, if sold separately or included separately with a product, must comply with federal child-resistant packaging regulations. The act exempts from these requirements (1) toy products that are in compliance with certain existing battery accessibility and labeling requirements, and (2) batteries that are in compliance with the marking and packaging provisions of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Safety Standard for Portable Lithium Primary Cells and Batteries. The act also provides for compliance with the requirements by relying on a voluntary standard that is approved by the CPSC before it establishes the standard required by this act.
Sponsors: Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2]
Target Audience
Population: People who use or are exposed to products with button cells or coin batteries
Estimated Size: 150000000
- Button cell or coin batteries are widely used in a variety of consumer electronics and toys.
- The primary population at risk from button battery ingestion are children, particularly those aged six years or younger.
- The bill directly targets manufacturers and distributors of products that contain button cell or coin batteries.
- Families with young children are stakeholders as they need to be aware of and take actions based on the warning labels and child-resistant packaging.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes families with young children, particularly those under six, who are at higher risk of battery ingestion.
- Manufacturers and distributors of products containing button cell batteries will incur costs to comply with new safety standards, affecting supply chains.
- Some people might not notice an immediate personal impact due to the widespread indirect effects of increased safety standards across many products.
- The budget constraints suggest that the policy will primarily impact product labeling and packaging changes, while extensive public safety campaigns may be less emphasized.
- While not all households actively engage with button cell batteries, the prevalence of such products in commonplace electronics suggests a broad indirect impact.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's essential to have these safety measures in place; kids are so curious.
- I already try to keep small objects out of reach, but knowing there are additional safeguards is very reassuring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see more regulation; it feels like safety is finally catching up with technology.
- I hope manufacturers don't just pass the costs to consumers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Product Designer for Electronics (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will increase production costs, and I'm worried about maintaining profitability.
- Safety is important, but we need balanced approaches.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Childcare Provider (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome any measure that adds an extra layer of safety at daycares.
- It's a small step for a safer environment for kids.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Electronics Repairman (Rural Montana)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have to think about implementing these new standards; it might drive up my product costs.
- But I see the benefits if it prevents accidents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Tech Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a positive step for child safety, and it opens some business opportunities for us.
- Consumer awareness is also very important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected, but I see it improving safety for households.
- The focus should also be on reducing battery waste.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Nurse (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's heartbreaking to see accidents in pediatrics, so any preventive measure is welcome.
- The challenge will be widespread awareness and compliance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Consumer Electronics Retailer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety is good for business but implementing changes could affect inventory.
- I'll need to adjust quickly to keep customers happy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tech Enthusiast and Blogger (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancing product safety can only be a good thing, even if it's not my main concern.
- It might change the design dynamics in a positive way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $45000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $35000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill aims to reduce serious health hazards arising from battery ingestion by children.
- Initial costs entail setting standards, outreach, and compliance, but may result in long-term healthcare savings.
- While impacting small manufacturers more heavily, the changes are unlikely to cause significant industry disruption.
- Stakeholder engagement, including consumer awareness campaigns, is critical for effectiveness.