Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4479

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: Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

Target Audience

Population: People living in households with young children

Estimated Size: 60000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Software Engineer (New York, NY)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think it's important to keep safety standards high, especially for things that can harm children.
  • As a parent, I appreciate the added peace of mind.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 6

Artist (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This seems like overreach to me. I use these magnets quite a lot in my artwork.
  • It's disappointing that they’re banning something I find creatively stimulating.

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 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Student (Chicago, IL)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hadn't thought much about the risks before, but it makes sense to prevent possible injuries.
  • I think it’s better to be safe, especially around my nephew.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 4

Retail Store Manager (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This ban is going to require us to change our inventory, which is a hassle.
  • In the long run, though, it could reduce worry for families shopping here.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 3

Childcare Worker (Houston, TX)

Age: 31 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It’s a good move, these magnets are definitely a danger to kids under my care.
  • Anything that keeps the children safe is a positive.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

College Student (Boston, MA)

Age: 23 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think the policy is good as far as kids are concerned, but I’m indifferent otherwise.
  • I will probably look for alternative decorations.

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

Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This will require some product adjustments on our part, which is a bit of a pain.
  • I understand the safety concerns, but personal responsibility should matter too.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 4

Graphic Designer (Miami, FL)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I enjoy collecting these items, so it is annoying that I won’t be able to get new ones.
  • I’ll manage without, but it seems unnecessary for my use.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

Engineer (Dallas, TX)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see the value in keeping the grandkids safe, even if it means losing a couple of my puzzle sets.
  • Safety should come first, and they're just puzzles.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 4

Retired (Seattle, WA)

Age: 70 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I enjoy having a range of crafting materials, but I understand the need to protect kids.
  • It’s a slight inconvenience but nothing major to worry about for me personally.

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: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations