The Consumer Protection Movement of the 1960's-Lily Rorick

I did my paper on the Consumer Protection Movement that surged in the late 1960's with many other civil right movements. I interviewed three people with very different experiences/perspectives on this movement-both past and modern: those interviews are below.

Interview One: Dr. Abraham Bergman

Background: Abe Bergman received his medical degree from Case Western Reserve University in 1958 and joined the University of Washington School of Medicine faculty in 1964. In addition to his teaching appointment, he has held various administrative positions both at the University and at related medical facilites, including Director of Pediatrics at Harborview Medical Center. He co-founded the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center in 1985 and also helped establish the Odessa Brown Children's Clinic, an inner-city satellite of Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle. He worked tirelessly to establish protection laws like the Flammable Fabric Act Amendments and the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. He wrote many articles on political medicine, as well as many other topics. Abe Bergman has been awarded many honors for his work. He is a modest, respectable man who is good and generous beyond belief-once you get past a rough exterior disposition.

Q: What did you actually do to help consumers?
A: I brought Sen. Magnuson's attention to the fact the children were being injured by unsafe products, burned when their flammable clothing ignited, and poisoned when they ingested medicines that were not safely stored. So he introduced and succeeded in getting passed legislation creating the consumer product safety commission, the flammable fabric act amendments, and the poison prevention packaging act.

Q: What does the consumer protection movement and passing those laws have to do with being a doctor?
A: I wasn’t thinking of any “movement.” My motivation came from seeing the children who were affected, i.e. power lawn mower injuries, burns, aspiring poisoning, etc. My motivation to protect consumers was from what I saw in the emergency room.

Q: Why do you think that the consumer protection movement became important/started in the 1960’s?
A: There was a lot of ferment of all types taking place, i.e. civil rights, anti poverty programs. “Citizen action”…was a byword.

Q: Did Ralph Nader influence you during this time?
A: No. I admired him a lot. (Not now; he’s turned into a nut.) I think he made what I did possible, by preparing the country for change and informing them of what needed to change.

Q: Who else do you think influenced you, or even just influenced the movement?
A: Again, I didn’t think of it as a movement that I joined. I was influenced by my parents about not sitting on the sidelines. I saw kids in the emergency room, saw what was causing it and wanted to fix it.

Q: What combination of factors led to these laws being able to be passed?
A: The “revolutionary” times. But the power of Sen. Magnuson, who I worked with and who supported the cause and Ralph Nader. These men had lots of power with both citizens and politically influential people- the laws would not have been passed without their support.

Q: What do you think is the value of what the Consumer Product Safety Commission does?
A: Has statutory power to keep unsafe products off the market. But for most of it’s life, the Commission did little because of politics..i.e stymied during Bush Administration. Now it might be coming back to life. (interviewer’s note: Bush cut over 10 percent of the CPSC’s staff, leaving it with very few regulators/monitors. This led to the commission becoming very lax-it even acknowledged that because of resource limits, the committee has curtailed efforts aimed at preventing children from drowning in swimming pools and bath tubs (Lipton,2007))

Q: Between the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Flammable Fabric Act Amendments and the Poison Prevention Packaging Act which you think had the most positive effect? Which was the most important to you?
A: A number of studies have shown the marked reduction in flammable fabric burn injuries, and poisoning in children. I don’t think much about them, however. Passage of those laws were in many ways a lucky fluke. My friendship with Stan Sender who went to Garfield with me….and then worked for Magnuson. He put me in touch with Magnuson’s staff. Magnuson had so much power, that once he decided to take on an issue, it was virtually sure to be successful.

Q: What do you think is needed in order to make the government listen and get a law passed? What were the biggest advantages those fighting for consumer protection had?
A: There’s no such thing as “government.” It is a matter of political power. …i.e. electing the right people and having them “do the job.” Right now, despite Obama’s victory, the mood of the country does not favor consumer protection. The corporations are too powerful.

Q: Was the consumer protection movement a slow process or did things happen quickly?
A: Interesting question. Quickly, I think. The political climate was opportune for people like Nader….and Magnuson. There was a brief window in the late 60’s and 70’s. With the Vietnam War, the political climate changed.

Q: Did you see the results of the movement in the hospital?
A: Only that we no longer see kids with flammable fabric burns. Everything became safer to use. Because you could count on companies putting out safe products, because they knew they could get sued.

Q: Do you believe things have changed enough so that today companies are responsible about their customer’s safety?
A: I’m very cynical about that. (I’ve become much more radical in my thinking as I’ve gotten older.) The corporations are driven by one force, their profits and price of their shares. Fear of being sued is far more powerful than any government regulation, in terms of product safety.


Q: I was talking with someone lately and they mentioned that while they thought that consumer protection was good, they think has gone completely overboard. For example, GAP just recalled millions of dollars in children’s glittery sweatshirts because children were getting sick from eating the glitter. What do you say to that?
A: I agree completely. I hate zealotry of any sort. It’s hard, attempting to decipher where the line between TOO much and enough is…especially concerning safety issues. Can you be too safe? I believe you can, which may be strange to hear from a doctor. However there is absolutely a point where, just as companies need to be responsible for their product, people need to be responsible for their safety. We can provide helmets, but people must choose to wear them-you can lead a donkey to the trough, but you can’t make it drink-that’s a saying, is it not? There must be reason.

Q: Why was Senator Magnuson in such a “unique position” to change the law?
A: Simply because of his political power. He chaired the Senate Commerce Committee, and later the Senate Appropriations Committee. Also his personality was such, that he was highly respected by his Senate colleagues. In contrast to today’s Senate, there was much friendship extended across party lines.

Q: To what end did the people’s responses to the publicity, that you in part gave to the movement, cause the change?
A: Only to the extent that consumer protection was a big theme in Magnuson’s reelection campaign in 1968.
But also a KING-TV documentary called “The Burned Child” was instrumental in getting the Nixon administration to implement the flammable fabrics law.

Q: Do you believe things have changed enough so that today companies are responsible about their customer’s safety?
A: No, companies don’t think that way. They do worry, however, about being sued.

Q: Were the “games” of politics a part in getting consumer protection laws passed, or did people vote for the laws based on medical evidence/sympathy?
A: Yes, politics is a game. And since I’m a jock, that’s pretty much how I saw it. It was fun to win. How people vote is too complicated a subject. There were connections to people like Magnuson involved, which could have influenced their vote or they could have sympathized or agreed with the movement. No one can read inside their own minds.

Q: As far as protecting children’s healthy and safety, is there anything else that you think companies should be doing?
A: Again, I don’t hold out too much hope about the idealistic motivation of corporations. So many are “multinational”…..they do not feel responsible to any one country. Like the oil company, BP.

Q: Do you think it would be possible for this kind of legislation to be passed today?
A: Right now, no. The public mood is against intervention. Also, the courts, especially the Supreme Court, is way more pro-business that at that time.


Q: The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created during the peak of this movement in 1972. Do you think it still does the same job today as it was created to do back in the 1970’s?
A: See my earlier response. For many years the CPSC was ineffective. Will they be better now. I’m not holding my breath.

Q: Do you recommend that all doctors get involved with political medicine?
A: Absolutely not. The main job of doctors is to keep people from getting sick, and help them when they do get sick. I got involved with politics because my family was always involved. I was delivering campaign literature in my neighborhood when I was 8 years old.
On the other hand, I wish a lot more people were interested in politics, especially young people. To me, a person saying, “I’m not interested in politics,” is a cop-out of being a citizen. Just as people realized as they got involved with consumer protection in the ‘60’s, participating in the politics is beneficial and creates a better country.


BONUS QUESTION:

Q: Was the addition of fluoride to Seattle’s water in 1968 a case of consumer protection? (Note from author-this is only mentioned once and had no affect on the topic and is self explanatory so was not included in the historical context. Would have deleted question from interview, but thought it was interesting)
A: Not at all. There have always been a sizeable group of people alienated by scientific reasoning. The same people who think fluoridation is a poison, think the same thing about immunizations.



Interview Two: Ann Bergman

Ann Bergman grew up with consumer rights movement all around her, shaping the person she became. She is a perfect example of a citizen moved by the movement to assert her rights. Ann later married (then divorced) a fighter for consumer rights, other interviewee Abe Bergman. She went on to marry Michael Rorick who is a lawyer and add me, Lily Rorick-another rights activist- to her brood of children. Ann Bergman saw the before the consumer protection movement of the 1960’s and she sees the after.

Q: How did the consumer rights movement affect your life?
A: I grew up in the sixties—in 1970 I graduated from high school. There were so many important movements during this time—civil rights, anti-war, women’s rights and also consumer rights movement. We young people believed we could and should change the government, the traditional family structure, the rights of minorities. It was a time of big hopes and dreams for young people but also distrust of everything that was big and establishment.
Some people my age got very disenchanted with our society. They wanted to drop out and live on communes so they could make their own little worlds. I was a mixture of hopeful and distrustful. I knew the President (Lyndon Johnson) was lying about the war in Vietnam because I saw pictures on TV every night that showed something different was happening over there than what he was saying—he claimed we were winning the war but I saw little kids on fire from Napalm. I saw Robert Kennedy speak when I was 13 and really looked up to him and Martin Luther King was also my hero. Then they were both were shot and killed, All this made me pretty cynical at an early age. I think all these lies made everyone less trusting-contributing to the realization and anger that companies were sacrificing our safety for their profit, and the passion with which the consumer rights movement took place.

Q: What did Ralph Nader have to do with all of this for you?
A: Ralph Nader played a big part of forming my distrustful, yet hopeful view of the world during these years. In 1965 when he published “UnSafe at Any Speed” and has his Nader’s Raiders—lawyers fighting big companies covering up their wrong-doing---I grew super distrustful of big companies, as well as government. I didn’t trust either government or private companies to care about my safety or well-being. But I thought Nader was one brave individual fighting against an evil giant –Ford Motor and everybody I knew my age thought he was a big hero.
I believe he started the consumer rights movement that we pretty much take for granted today, but he had an even bigger influence on how we saw our individual power to cause change. While he made us more skeptical and less trusting of big business, he also made us believe in taking action and fighting for positive change. He definitely inspired me and many people I knew to find work that would make the world a better place.
.


Q: Did your parents ever mention the consumer rights movement? Or any frustrations with products, companies?
A: We didn’t talk about a consumer rights movement---I don’t think that when you are living during a change like that you see it at the time. It is only when you look back that you realize it was a time of big change. But we knew the Senator Magnuson from our state was a leader in the country to get legislation to require fabric that wouldn’t burn easily, safety tops on bottles so kids didn’t think medicine was candy and eat it, seat belts so cars were safer.
As part of this movement lawyers starting suing big companies that had harmed people with their products. Some people thought lawyers made too much money from those “personal injury” lawsuits but my parents would talk about how they thought companies behaved more responsibility when they knew they could be sued for millions for something they did that harmed people.
Once my dad found a big piece of metal in a can of tuna and I remember he was excited about it. He sent it to the tuna company and complained that the object could have cracked a tooth. I think he hoped they would send him lots of money but they just sent him a coupon for another can of tuna. Still, it showed that me that he thought we had rights and companies had to pay if they did something that hurt us.

Q: What was the biggest noticeable change in consumer rights?
A: We went from trusting companies to watch out for our safety to thinking we needed laws and regulatory agencies to make sure companies didn’t put profits over our safety. In our daily lives there were lots of changes because of this movement---children’s nightgowns became non-flammable, our medicine containers had safety caps, our cars got seat belts, etc. We believed we had the right to demand safe products.

Q: Did you ever feel manipulated or unsafe as a consumer? When did that change?
A: I definitely felt manipulated by ads from tobacco companies that didn’t mention that smoking can cause cancer, they just made smoking look fun and sexy. Then laws passed that required health warnings on ads for cigarettes and made laws about advertising to young people.
Q: Was the smoking scene affected by that?
The ads made smoking the coolest thing ever-you can imagine, I’m sure. The same way that technology catches on today I guess. Everybody you know uses Facebook or Twitter or something, or in my case smokes. They are the beautiful, popular people. Sure there are rumors that computer time kills brain cells, or Facebook causes procrastination, in my case it was a small rumor that smoking was bad for you. It was fun, exciting, cool, something to do. Facebook, (chuckles). When suddenly all the packages had the official stamp of the surgeon general confirming all the rumors, it shocked and scared people. However for a lot of them, they were already to deep into the habit.

Q: Did you smoke?
No, I didn’t actually. I was really lucky-my parents believed really strongly in not smoking, except for my Dad’s occasional pipe so I didn’t get a change beyond a few puffs. They kind of discouraged anything that would have made me cool, thinking back (laughs).


Q: Do you believe that companies have their customer's safety at heart now?
A: The recent banking crisis pointed out that government has not kept as vigilant as it should have protecting consumer rights in some areas, but in product safety I feel safer. I want to keep faith in mankind and say that is because I believe that companies want us to be safe but there are too many cases of wickedness and selfishness, I have become rather jaded and am forced to believe that companies keep us safe so we don’t sue, and they don’t lose even more money.

Q: As you had children did consumer right issues become more applicable to you?
A: I was grateful that government agencies do recalls of unsafe products. Sometimes all the warnings and recalls seem to go too far, but I’d rather have that problem than dangerous products being sold to me that might hurt my kids. It scares me whenever I hear of recalls, or products slipping by. There are so many dangers in the world, it seems that two pop up for every one we eliminate. However, people out there are doing their best to keep us safe and I am beyond grateful for that-it would have existed with the consumer protection movement and the demand for the right to be safe that spurred it.



Interview Three: Kristin Alexander

Kristin Alexander grew up in Olympia, a little too young to remember the real consumer protection movement. However she is a modern perspective working in the field right in downtown Seattle. In this interview, Ms. Alexander gives a feel for what consumer protection is doing these days, and what is it like to be a part of it. In her free time, Kristin performs at local theaters, tries out a little nonfiction writing (she used to be a reporter in high school) and attends to wine tastings.


Q: What is your job ?
A: I work for the Washington State Office of the Attorney General, who right now is Rob Mckenna. More specifically, I work for the Consumer Protection division of the AGO, upholding the rights of citizens in relations to businesses.
Q: My research paper is about the consumer protection movement. What do you think when you hear those words?
A: The consumer protection was about the people and the government together taking action to declare the unfair or deceptive acts that many businesses pull off unlawful, as well as making it so that the people can feel safe with these businesses, and with the government.
Q: Would your job have existed before this movement?
A: No, I doubt it. If people weren’t aware of their rights, they wouldn’t need someone to fight for them in court. And if there weren’t laws about consumer protection, there would be nothing to base an argument on.

Q: Does the work of Ralph Nader influence your work/job?
A: It’s my understanding that Nader was a driving force behind passage of a number of consumer protection laws, which directly is my field. But I have never considered his work in reference to mine, though I consider him a great political figure.

Q: What makes you want to work in consumer protection?
A: The Attorney General’s Office has an important role in protecting our state’s consumers from fraud and ensuring fair relations between citizens and businesses. I believe the work that I do matters as it saves the citizens of America money and often saves them from harm. I believe that here, we serve justice. Moreover, I enjoy the company of my co-workers. This is a positive workplace as everyone here is looking to help others.

Q: How does your workplace protects customers? From an injury in the first place, or their rights AFTER the injury?
A: Both. The saying “an ounce of a prevention is worth a pound of cure” is so true. So our office makes consumer education a top priority, in addition to using our enforcement authority.

Q: Do you think that companies generally have their customer’s best interests at heart? How has that changed?
A: Yes. Despite all the bad headlines, I believe that most businesses want to do the right thing. As Attorney General Rob McKenna has said in the past, “Companies that uphold a set of values are rewarded with loyal customers, motivated employees, and satisfied investors.”
We want to create an environment in Washington where businesses continue to thrive and consumers benefit from a fair marketplace. Has that changed? I’m not sure. I am really sort of an idealist and like to think that people have others in their hearts. I feel like this was even more true pre-1960’s than it is now, but clearly businesses were sort of screwing the citizens over back then. I’m not sure-you’ve stuck me in a pickle with this one!

Q: What is the most common issue you get hired for? How has that changed over the years?
A: I’d say the issues vary widely. But if you look at the number of written complaints filed with our Consumer Resource Centers, the collections industry is now a big problem.
Washington consumers filed more complaints about collection agencies with the Attorney General’s Office in 2009 than any other industry. Gripes about collection agencies have been rising in recent years but it took a single complaint to ultimately move the industry into pole position and bump telecommunications, which previously held the top spot for at least a decade.
And, of course, the creation of the Internet has changed the landscape of fraud. Unlike their traditional counterparts, crimes that use computer networks can be committed from afar, carried out automatically and attack a vast number of victims simultaneously. Perpetrators can more easily remain anonymous. Investigations are further complicated by the need to deal with multiple jurisdictions, each with its own laws and legal procedures.
The Washington State Attorney General’s Office is known as a national leader in efforts to fight high-tech crimes. Washington was one of the first states to adopt a law explicitly prohibiting spyware activities and imposing serious penalties on violators.

Q: How does your job connect with the Consumer Product Safety Commission?
A: For starters, we are both in the business of protecting customers. We list items recalled by the CPSC on our Web site. The commission has jurisdiction over about 15,000 types of consumer products, such as automatic coffee makers, toys, furniture, clothing, and lawn mowers. We do our best to get our client what they need when they have a complaint about any of those consumer products that the commission controls. If a complaint is sent to the commission, they can take action to recall and will often the individual complainer to us, so that we can deal specifically with his issue and the company. There are many cases where attorneys general have reached settlements with companies that sold and marketed unsafe products on behalf a citizen client. Examples of recent product liability lawsuits in which defendant companies lost include breast implants that leaked silicone gel and football helmets that did not have enough padding.
Q: Do your customers generally know their rights as far as consumerism goes?
A: People now have a sense of self-righteousness about them, so much more than anything that was ingrained in the citizens before the ‘60s. This creates a sort of automatic sixth sense about one’s rights: people can tell when they are being wronged, and that is when they come to us, to right the situation between them and a business.


Q: What law do you use the most in order to prosecute companies?
A: We uphold the state’s Consumer Protection Act. The law gives the Attorney General's Office the authority to bring lawsuits against businesses or individuals who violate the Consumer Protection Act – whether they intended to deceive or not. We can ask the court for fines (civil penalties), injunctions that require the business to change its practices and restitution (refunds) for consumers. The law also allows individuals to hire their own attorneys to bring consumer protection lawsuits. Our office also provides informal mediation between businesses and their customers and works to resolve complaints so that both sides feel they are treated fairly. This also relates to how we protect the consumers of Washington State, something you asked earlier.

Q: Has the amount of business deception/fraud gone down or up in the past few years?
It has gone way down. Whether that is because the quality of people running businesses has gone up, which I like to think or because the punishments are getting harsher and we are getting better and better at catching the bad guys. It could also be because of fraud scandals in the past few years that have received tons of media attention, so businesses are scared of trying to pull anything in current conditions. It could also have something to do with new political environment and Obama running now running the country. Also, there are new laws being added to the system as more materials become prohibited, so more and more things are being put in the books as official deception or breaking of the law, giving the perpetrator barely any chance to succeed in trial-people do not want to commit these crimes.

Q: How do you (or the United States consumer protection officers in general) deal with consumer protection issues that come from outside of the States?
A: This is a very tricky situation. If a client comes to us looking for help in potentially suing a non-American toy manufacturer, we cannot sue because our laws only apply to American toys. However, we are able to sue the American importing businesses-some are huge-for distributing a product that goes against the Consumer Protection Act. This gets trickier however, as the distributing companies get smaller and more unknown-can we really sue them for millions?