Bill Overview
Title: Magnet Injury Prevention Act
Description: This bill prohibits as hazardous consumer products specified small, high-powered magnets. The prohibition includes magnets that (1) are designed and marketed for entertainment or mental stimulation (e.g., puzzle working, sculpture building, or certain jewelry); (2) are not classified as a toy or children’s jewelry subject to existing standards; (3) pose a choking, aspiration, or ingestion risk to young children; and (4) have a magnetic field magnitude above a certain threshold. The bill also authorizes the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue product safety standards for certain other types of small, high-powered magnets.
Sponsors: Rep. Cárdenas, Tony [D-CA-29]
Target Audience
Population: People globally, especially children and families, who may own or are at risk from small, high-powered magnets.
Estimated Size: 300000000
- The bill targets small, high-powered magnets not classified as toys but used for entertainment purposes, which may pose a risk to children if ingested.
- Manufacturers and sellers of these magnets will be directly affected as they will no longer be able to sell certain products.
- Parents and guardians of young children, who may purchase such magnets without awareness of the risks, will be impacted by having safer consumer products.
- Ingested magnets are a known hazard that can cause serious injuries, particularly in young children, hence the legislation targets prevention of such injuries.
- Healthcare professionals, especially pediatricians, will see impacts in terms of reduced cases of injuries caused by ingestion of small magnets.
- The Consumer Product Safety Commission will be involved due to their expanded authority to regulate product safety standards.
Reasoning
- The Magnet Injury Prevention Act's primary targets are small magnet manufacturers, sellers, users (especially parents), and healthcare providers dealing with injuries. These affected groups represent a vast demographic range, yet each portrays distinct interaction levels with the policy.
- The budgetary constraints emphasize efficient allocation of resources towards impactful regulation and safety standard implementation, prioritizing high-risk areas and potentially vulnerable populations.
- It's crucial to distinguish between those directly impacted by the policy (e.g., manufacturers unable to sell products, parents of young children) versus groups experiencing secondary effects (e.g., healthcare professionals experiencing shifts in injury statistics).
Simulated Interviews
Stay-at-home parent (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I didn't know these magnets could be so dangerous. I'm glad such precautions are being taken to protect my child.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
School teacher (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I see the importance of safety, these magnets are beneficial for educational purposes. I hope alternatives are considered.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Small business owner (Portland, OR)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might severely impact my business, I need to explore safe alternatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Pediatrician (Boston, MA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a necessary step to reduce potential risks to children. It is consistent with the preventive measures I endorse.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the reasoning but hope it doesn't severely restrict my hobby activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to know this will make shopping safer for my grandchildren.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Artist (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned this will limit the materials I can use, impacting my art business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Healthcare administrator (Dallas, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation will undoubtedly impact public health positively by preventing avoidable injuries.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 18 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this doesn't hinder my studies but I understand the safety implications are important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Product safety advocate (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction for consumer safety and aligns with the regulations I support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of CPSC's enforcement will directly impact the success of the Magnet Injury Prevention Act in reducing injuries.
- Potential legal challenges from manufacturers may arise, influencing enforcement timelines and associated costs.
- Consumer awareness campaigns may be necessary to ensure adults are informed about magnet risks and regulation changes.