Again, misuse, not product design, was the real cause of that injury. Individual recognition of personal responsibility is the real problem here now.

Don't misunderstand me. I believe in and I have worked hard for a higher standard for all flammable textiles, all kinds of textiles. But I am a realist. I know people. I really want the injuries and deaths cut down. And I know, as a psychologist, as a teacher, as a communication bridge for consumers, industry, and the Government, that we must attack this on a parallel front: safer design, along with better surveillance, but, simultaneously, the toughest, most inspired national training program for avoiding misuse of products.

Until a majority of our people fully see the dangers from both poor design and thoughtless misuse, no act of law will really reduce our damage rate by very much. People need to be taught safe behavior from their very first school year, and they need to see what safety is. That's where television may come in.

But let me also suggest that this could be a highly effective incentive to private industry to cooperate in setting and using and certifying standards for safe products with the directions for their use. Because, you see, that could produce a terrific consumer demand for safe products, and that provides the incentive to industry, and, in my opinion, is better than a system of punishments for not creating safeguards.

Plainly, what I am suggesting is that we make this a joint crusade, bringing adults and young people into it to alert their communities, bringing private industry, reputable standards-making bodies of both Government and private industry into it, and letting consumers—consumers be the real policemen, watching themselves, and their safe use of all products.

Now, can you bring together all these segments in a single drive for safety? I think you can. I have experimented over the years and recently with several community conferences of this nature. For instance, in April I directed a conference on flammable fabrics which was sponsored by the Bucks County, Pa., Consumer Education Committee, with county educators, aimed at students as well as adult consumers. With the generous assistance of Malcolm Jensen, director of the Bureau of Product Safety, Dr. Joseph Clark, chief of the Office of Flammable Fabrics, NBS, Mr. William Rockwell, director of Certification Programs for American National Standards, and Mr. Roger Wilson, representing the American Apparel Manufacturers Association, all of whom presented important facts and figures, we alerted a large community to the flammable fabrics problem. Underwriters' Laboratories sponsored a student poster contest for local art students to design posters to be used throughout the area to bring out the people. They were highly effective. Some 800 students and adults joined that meeting.

Senator, I sent you some pictures of those posters, and I knew you would be pleased to realize that people responded to what those students, those kids in school, worked out as a way to alert people to safety. They were really effective. It was really a great experience. We learned a good deal, too, about how to make the best use of that hunger of young people to have an important part in public service, to do something real, serving somebody, and we learned how to reach them. I do not know if you have already heard about two communities in this country who have recently just started that kind of a community missionary effort. One is Teaneck, N.J., named "Operation

Community Talent," and the other is Minneapolis, named "Community Resource Volunteers." They are doing a terrific job. They have enlisted doctors, professors, teachers, businessmen, all kinds of people, to go out as missionaries to collect in roundtable forums and schools and tell them, "Look, here is what you need to know before you buy. Here is performance, and here is safety. Here are the laws. These are the things you need to know."

And it's been amazingly successful. So it can be done.

But my final point is this-and I am speaking today for the consumer's viewpoint. But at the same time I pride myself on keeping a good balance here in our economic partnership, and I am as concerned about industry as with consumers my final point is to urge this committee to keep the present Bureau of Product Safety by giving it a new and independent status, with its own budget, freedom from political pressures, and broad powers to utilize all existing machinery in Government and the private sector to bring our national product safety design and consumer use up to a civilized standard.

Do you see why I want that under HEW? Health, Education, and Welfare. Where else should education be?

I also urge that Malcolm Jensen be persuaded somehow to stay on as director, for three reasons: First, the director should have an intimate knowledge of standards-making procedures and an honest respect for a good standard. Too many people really do not know anything at all about this complicated business of setting up a good standard. He ought to be familiar also with industry's realistic problems, and its production line behavior. And, most important, he must thoroughly understand and sympathize with the consumers' needs for the safety they cannot see or evaluate, as well as the safety they can manage for themselves. Now, it is awfully hard to find these in one person. Mr. Jensen happens to have them.

I know my viewpoint will not be a popular one. I have to disagree with my good friend, for whom I have great respect, Mr. Arnold Elkind, the chairman of the National Commission on Product Safety, and I know some of my other good friends will disagree with me. I know many spokesmen for the public say you cannot expect responsible action from the average person. You can't leave it to them; they won't police themselves, it won't work. I say you can, if the right plan, the right words, and the right people make this a mighty crusade.

One last thing: I was doing some research work not long ago, and in going through the archives of the State of Virginia, I came across a conversation reported between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. I think you will like it.

Mr. Hamilton was objecting to the idea of having the people take part in decisionmaking in this country. He said, "The people, sir, are turbulent, changing. They seldom judge or determine right."

And Mr. Jefferson said, "Mr. Hamilton, the years have not enriched your judgment in this matter-I have unlimited faith in the people, in their common sense. I believe human nature is indefinitely perfectable."

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Moss. We thank you, Mrs. Dana, for your fine testimony and your long experience in this field. We appreciate having your testimony here on our record. You make a fervent plea for keeping the present Bureau of Product Safety and giving it new and independent

status with its own budget, freedom from political pressures, and broad powers to utilize all existing machinery in Government and private sector, and then plead for keeping it in HEW where it would not have independent status, would not have its own budget, and sumably would be subject to political pressures, such as do exist. So it seems to me that I would like to accept your plea that we have independence, but I am not sure that it would be within HEW.

pre

Mrs. DANA. Could it not be made, under law, an independent section, as independent as Food and Drug is with its own budget, its own decisionmaking authority? Could that not be done?

Senator Moss. No; I questioned the Secretary on that when he was before us, and, of course, the budget must go up in the same way. It must be approved by the Secretary, then it comes back down and it is handed to the division, whatever it is.

Mrs. DANA. But it would not have to be under FDA's budget-
Senator Moss. It would not have to be under FDA?

Mrs. DANA. It could be separate.

Senator Moss. It could be directly under the Secretary, but it would have to go to that extent through him.

Mrs. DANA. Yes.

Senator Moss. But we appreciate having this point of view, and I like your plea for increased education of individuals to use products safely. Unfortunately, when a child is 5 years old, you cannot very well educate him to the fact that his candle will tip over and it might set his nightgown on fire.

Mrs. DANA. No; that is an adult responsibility.

Senator Moss. It is an adult responsibility; yes. But he is sleeping in his bed, you see?

Mrs. DANA. But the matches were left around, Senator.

Senator Moss. Oh, yes. I think you can trace the casual part back, but the part that we can control is that his nightgown would not go up in flames, you see.

Mrs. DANA. That is only a very partial answer.

Senator Moss. Well, it is only part of it. I agree.

Thank you very much. We are very glad to have you come before us, and we do appreciate the fine work you do in the field of safety, and especially in the flammable fabrics area.

Our next witness will be Gov. Howard Pyle, who is president of the National Safety Council. We would like to hear from Governor Pyle now.

Would you identify your associates?

STATEMENT OF GOV. HOWARD PYLE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL; ACCOMPANIED BY HARRY N. ROSENFIELD, COUNSEL; ROBERT CURRIL, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

Governor PYLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am Howard Pyle, president of the National Safety Council. On my right is our Washington counsel, Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield, and on my left one of the experts in our office, Mr. Robert Curril, our assistant general manager.

The National Safety Council, chartered by the Congress of the United States, has as its only mission the prevention of accidents and the mitigation of injuries and economic loss caused by accidents.

By the very nature of its commitment to the concept of total safety, the National Safety Council has been and continues to be vitally concerned with the importance of preventing accidents that may result from poor design, malfunction, or improper use of consumer products. Thus, the council is in complete accord with the ultimate objectives of the product safety legislation now before the Congress, the idea being to protect the public against unreasonable risk arising out of hazardous consumer products which may result in death, injury, or illness.

The council was in complete accord with the objectives set by Congress in Public Law 90-146 which created the National Commission on Product Safety and so stated in testimony given before the commission. The council applauded the same concept when the late President Kennedy, in listing the four common rights of the consumer, began with: "The right to safety. To be protected against the marketing of goods which are hazardous to health or life."

The council also welcomed the opportunity to go on record in support of amendments to the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15) U.S.C. 1261 et seq.) which increased protection to children against hazards to their safety and health.

The council concurred in another conclusion that is certainly of mutual interest and concern, to wit: No one has done enough for safety in any of the innumerable ways in which human exposure to undue risk can and does result in accidental death, injury, or illness. The council's dissatisfactions in this regard are endless.

Product safety is of vital concern not only to consumer interests, but to industry in general and to the voluntary safety movement. Such concern stems not only from humanitarian reasons, but also because it is a major factor in retention of consumer confidence for long-term business survival.

NSC PRECEPTS

No object found in nature or produced by man is totally without some risk of harmful interaction with man. A basic National Safety Council precept is that the elimination of all risk of injury will never be fully achieved, even with the simplest of objects. Nevertheless, we must continue to strive to reduce the risk level until it approaches zero. Since we can never achieve absolute freedom from risk under all conditions, we must therefore address ourselves to the degree of safety that can be achieved, recognizing the obvious constraints within our society.

The NSC family believes in and espouses the principle that every practical effort should be made to determine, then remove or control the probability and the consequences of those undesired events arising out of hazards, malfunctions, failures, and predictable misuse, thus assuring optimum safety within the constraints of known technology, resources, and product performance.

Another National Safety Council precept is that none of us, no matter how determined we may be, can long ignore cost-benefit and product-effectiveness factors that are inherent in any proposed change made for reducing the level of risk. Safety, as well as the "ility" fac

tors, such as reliability, quality, maintainability, compatibility, et cetera, must earn their way through quantitative evidence of effectiveness in terms of costs, benefits, and product performance for the consumer, the manufacturer, and others who interface with consumer products.

In search for ultimate answers, two additional precepts are elemental. The first is that maximum safety of any product is achieved initially in the conceptual phase and ultimately in the design and development phase of the product life cycle unless modifications are made after the product becomes operational. This imposes heavy responsibilities on those concerned with conception, design, development, and production control. The council considers the labeling, instructions for installing and use, warnings, et cetera, and the creation and test of components, mockups, or prototypes as parts of the design and development function.

The second precept is that the change required to eliminate true cause of an accident will not always rest with the manufacturer. While it is essential that the design function must do everything reasonable to mitigate errors or misuse on the part of others, it must be recognized that a safely designed and properly manufactured product can be improperly installed, improperly maintained, and improperly used. Thus, the change required to eliminate true cause may very well rest with others in the system network; namely the wholesaler, the retailer, the installer, the consumer, the serviceman, and the disposer.

CONSUMER PRODUCT ACCIDENT/INJURY DATA

It is tragically unfortunate that precise data on consumer products and their relationship to accidents do not exist. To the extent that product safety can be directly related to home safety, the record shows that since 1912 the number of households has almost tripled and the population doubled, but the number of deaths arising out of home accidents shows little variation from year to year. Thus, in this time span, the accidental home death rate declined 50 percent.

Such a reduction in death rates must be considered conservative since it was accomplished despite changes in other variables such as:

1. The increase in the number and variety of consumer products now found in each home.

2. The increase in the population of the very young and the very elderly among whom home accident fatality rates are the highest. 3. The increase of leisure time at home.

4. The increase in do-it-yourself and recreational activities. As convincing as this trend is, we suggest that it be set aside since such information is not related to level of risk and is inadequate to conclude any significant or specific relationship between consumer products and accidents. A review of the literature on the relationship between consumer products and accidents leads us to these observations.

1. There is a woeful lack of sufficiently reliable data on the incidence of accidents and injuries, where cause can be directly attributed to hazardous consumer products, to know the true scope of the product safety problem in its broadest terms or what the priorities should be in dealing with the problem as a whole or in its major parts.