Consumer Product Safety Commission Withdraws Controversial Child Valuation Guideline

You might care about this because the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CPSC, recently decided to withdraw its new guidance for how it values a statistical life in its safety analyses. This guidance, issued in April 2024, included a method where the value assigned to a child's life (under 18) was set at twice the value of an adult's life. This approach is known as the "double-VSL-for-minors" methodology. The CPSC is pulling this guidance because it caused major legal, analytical, and policy problems. These issues included the method not matching what other federal agencies do, a lack of strong evidence to support it, and a higher chance of lawsuits. The CPSC also worried that it looked like they were unfairly inflating benefits to justify desired safety rules. They are now going back to their old way of valuing statistical lives, which is more in line with other government groups. The CPSC wants its methods to be based on facts, rigorous analysis, legally sound, and believable to the public. What makes this decision particularly interesting is that it highlights the careful balance agencies must strike when setting public policy that involves complex economic valuations. The CPSC had attempted a novel approach by assigning a higher value to the lives of minors, which, on the surface, might seem intuitive. However, the withdrawal shows how crucial consistency and solid empirical evidence are in federal rulemaking. It points out that even well-intentioned changes can face challenges if they do not align with broader government standards or if their supporting data is weak. This move by the CPSC shows how important it is for government agencies to stick to established practices unless there is very strong justification for change. It also shows that agencies listen to concerns raised by the public and experts when policies are developed. This action reaffirms the CPSC's commitment to methods that are widely accepted and well-supported. People who would be most interested in this legal document include legal professionals, especially those involved in administrative law or product liability. Economists and policy analysts, particularly those focused on cost-benefit analysis and regulatory impact assessments, will find this highly relevant. Consumer product manufacturers and industries regulated by the CPSC should pay close attention, as this affects how the economic benefits of safety regulations are calculated. Consumer safety advocates, particularly those focused on child safety, might also find this document important for understanding the CPSC's methods. Additionally, federal employees working in other agencies that conduct similar cost-benefit analyses would be interested in seeing how consistency across government is maintained. Finally, academics and researchers studying regulatory economics or public policy will find this a useful case study.