What Keeps Us Safe?

Mark Thornton

Look at the back of your computer monitor, the bottom of your table lamp, or the label on your hair dryer. Chances are you will see the symbol "UL" with a circle around it. It stands for Underwriters Laboratories, a firm headquartered in orthbrook, Ill., and an unsun! hero of the market economy. Most people don"t reali#e that do#ens of products in their homes$$ toasters, fire e%tin!uishers, space heaters, tele&isions, etc.$$ha&e been tested by the Underwriters Lab for safety. The Lab also tests items like bulletproof &ests, electric blankets, commercial ice cream machines, and chicken de$beakers, amon! thousands of other products. 'ut the Lab isn"t an arm of the !o&ernment. It is pri&ately owned, financed, and operated. o one is compelled by force of law to use its ser&ices. It thri&es, and makes our li&es safer, by the power of its e%cellent reputation. (or that reason, its ideolo!ically dri&en enemies on the left despise it. The firm was formed in )*+, to deal with the dan!ers posed by the dramatic increase in the use of electricity. Today, it employs ,,--scientists, en!ineers, and safety specialists to render an independent &erdict on hundreds of thousands of products. The &ery e%istence of the Lab debunks the common ci&ics$te%t &iew that without !o&ernment inter&ention, pri&ate businesses would seek profit without re!ard for safety. Thus, bureaucrats ha&e to police markets to impose a balance between pri&ate interests and the common !ood. The !o&ernment, then, is the only thin! standin! between us and unceasin! fatal accidents. The truth is the opposite. The market is well equipped to re!ulate itself, and does a fine .ob of it. It"s the !o&ernment that operates without o&ersi!ht. To disco&er the quality and &alue of products, no one would trust the ad&ice of the scandal$ridden Commerce /epartment or the (ederal Trade Commission.

Unlike quality and price, safety isn"t always at the forefront of the consumer"s mind. 'ut that hasn"t kept manufacturers from seekin! out the Lab"s testin! ser&ices. (or those who appreciate the &irtues of pri&ate enterprise, the UL insi!nia is an inspiration. The Lab was the first to set standards for certifyin! the safety of pilots and planes before the !o&ernment inter&ened. It set the standards for buildin! materials, fire fi!htin! equipment, air conditioners, and household chemicals. It employs safecrackers and pyrotechnicians to test safes, and a &ariety of unique machines and de&ices to test thousands of other products each year. It has been testin! multicolored Christmas li!hts since )+-0, and entered the buildin! code business ri!ht after the )+-1 2an (rancisco earthquake. /espite its unparalleled e%perience and success, the market economy keeps the Lab inno&atin!. 3s en!ineer 4ohn /ren!enber! of the Lab said, "There"s always some little twist in a new product$$an inno&ati&e feature or somethin! to make it cheaper$$to keep us busy de&elopin! the appropriate test procedure." Its effecti&eness in determinin! safety standards 5e&en for brand$new products6 and maintainin! them o&er time has !enerated an interestin! result. Many !o&ernment re!ulations, especially at the state le&el, merely mimic the buildin! codes and insurance requirements of the Lab. The Lab also "re!ulates" in a cost$effecti&e way. Companies come to the Lab to present their products and the tests they ha&e already conducted. The company pays a testin! fee ran!in! from a couple of hundred dollars to se&eral thousand, dependin! on the costs of the tests to be conducted. If the product passes, it recei&es one of three desi!nations. To be "listed" means that the product has passed muster for sale as a final product, like a hair dryer. If it is listed as "reco!ni#ed," it is safe to use as a component within the final product, like a transformer. To be "certified" means that the product has met someone else"s standards, such as the Chica!o buildin! code. 7ach product is tested for each use, and the Lab is strict about how its mark is used by manufacturers. (or e%ample, 2ecuritron Ma!nalock sent a new lock to the Lab for testin!. ew standards had to be established,

and the lock was duly tested and "reco!ni#ed" as a component for a delayed e%it system. 8hen the company fa%ed all of its field representati&es that the product was "UL appro&ed," Lab officials suspended the listin!. It then required 2ecuritron to inform all employees that UL does not "appro&e" any product. To insure continued safety, manufacturers a!ree to let the Lab inspect their production facilities and to retest on demand. These on$site inspections, often four a year, are unannounced. Lab inspectors can require manufacturers to present data and to rerun safety trials and e%periments. Companies, in turn, pay a tiny fee for e&ery UL desi!nation symbol they put on their products. Manufacturers can modify their products to adapt to market conditions, but the Lab o&ersees chan!es that affect product safety. The Lab is infle%ible and scientific, but it"s also dri&en by common sense and realism. othin! is perfectly safe, of course. The competiti&e marketplace and the Lab aim for safety in a framework of rational attention to costs. UL official /ren!enber! has noted that "It would be &ery easy for us to come up with an o&erly strict standard," but then no one could afford to buy the product. In fact, the Lab once built a fireproof office for some of its employees. The e%pensi&e room featured ceramic tile on the walls and ceilin!, a thick concrete floor, metal furniture, and similar standards. ot only was the cost hi!h, the esthetic results were not impressi&e. 3s 9obert :ereance, author of 7lectrical (ire 3nalysis says, "most of us cannot afford a fireproof dwellin! and would not like li&in! in it if we could." The Lab notes that *-; of accidents and fires are caused by consumers, not products. It takes this into account in its requirements. In the case of space heaters, for e%ample, the Lab felt that enhanced warnin! labels would reduce as many fires as an e%pensi&e redesi!n, thus keepin! down cost and price. Compare this approach with the !o&ernment"s. Its standards are as difficult to understand as they are contradictory. 'ut its uncertain standards contrast with its hard$ed!ed enforcement and o&ersi!ht. 8ith

the !o&ernment, products that meet the standards don"t ha&e to be safe, while perfectly safe products can fail to pass the re!ulations. The Lab is not perfect, and, in a few cases, it has paid dama!es for its mistakes. 'ut the failures ha&e been few and far between. 4ust last year, it tested more than )1,0-- types of products, nearly *-,--- different products, conducted on!oin! on$site inspections, and placed the UL symbol on nearly nine billion products. The Lab has its critics, of course. (or e%ample, 2tuart 2tatler of the Trial Lawyers of 3merica calls the Lab "totally dri&en by industry money." 8hereas they should be dri&en by trial$lawyer money< "Consumer ad&ocate" 9alph ader claims that the Lab is a "&ery meek, "lowest common denominator type" operation." In short, it doesn"t impose unreasonable burdens on the market, bankrupt companies, or harm consumers. Most recently, the ew :ork Times accused the Lab of lettin! down its !uard and conspirin! with manufacturers. The contro&ersy surrounds the Lab"s listin! of a new => twister cap that connects copper and aluminum wires. 8hen copper was relati&ely e%pensi&e, houses were wired with aluminum. 3fter lon! use, howe&er, it has pro&en more of a fire ha#ard. (ull rewirin! is e%pensi&e, so the inno&ati&e caps allow homeowners an intermediate solution. 'ut for bureaucrats and left$win! ideolo!ues, no pri&ate solution is praiseworthy. The Times"s 'arry Meier writes that the Lab is "sparrin! with (ederal officials in a behind$the$scenes battle" that is "e%posin! some potential shortcomin!s of industry self$re!ulation." The hope of those who oppose the twister cap is that the !o&ernment will refuse to appro&e it for use. ?eople will ha&e to use old aluminum wires or the old, unsafe cap. In either case, the fire ha#ard will remain hi!her. 2uch are the consequences of sidin! with !o&ernment o&er pri&ate standards. 3fter a century of public ser&ice, Underwriters Laboratories has pro&en a safe, effecti&e, and cost$conscious alternati&e to !o&ernment bureaucracy. It shows us that the market disco&ers new and effecti&e solutions to the problems of e&eryday life, reduces the risks all around us, and does it without resortin! to the coercion and inefficiency of !o&ernment.