From the article:
'... "Requiring cautionary labeling on all products may make us feel better as parents and grandparents," Locker said, "but we should not deceive ourselves into believing that there is any evidence which suggests that injuries and deaths will be further reduced." A year later, TIA President David Miller testified before lawmakers to oppose a bill that would prohibit companies from selling balls less than 1.75 inches in diameter for use by babies and toddlers. At the time, about 5,000 children were being taken to hospital emergency rooms each year after aspirating or ingesting small toys or parts of toys. Congress passed the Child Safety Act of 1994, and the rule went into effect—but only over the toy industry's objections. (emphasis added)'
And then what happened? Is there now evidence to show that the rule worked, or was Locker (the toy man) correct?
An article that pushes for better regulation ought to show the evidence that regulation works. This was a golden opportunity, yet the author either failed to take the obvious step, or deliberately left out the information.
