This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Friday, February 13, 2009.

I'm Caleb Brown.

A new rule governing lead in children's products, even with their dramatic effects it may have on some markets seems like a pretty easy sell.

After all there is no lobby on behalf of harming kids with lead laced products, but even with

the threat posed by lead, certainly for chemicals with less clearly established

risks, is a ban always the best government response.

Peter Van Doren, editor of Regulation magazine and Cato Institute senior fellow comments.

Effective this week, to be precise, February 10th, the Consumer Product Safety Commission

is charged with implementing this law and the rules go into effect on February 10th.

They mandate that any toy intended for the use by someone 12 years of age or under be tested to not contain

more than 600 parts per million of lead and not contain any of some plastic substances called thallates which are used as a

to harden certain kinds of plastics in particular baby bottles is one particular place where they tend to be used.

From the government perspective there are two ways to deal with lead or thalites.

Lead is an easy cell in terms of its risks. They're widely known. They're very damaging. There's nothing you can do about it. So it's easier to make a case for government regulation of preemptive contents.

But what about something where this is not quite really settled? the sorts of damages. One is ex ante, one is prevention. We should never let that happen

before the fact. Or two is we can let things happen and then let and then

figure out damages subsequent to that.

And if we assign damages appropriately, in turn,

through game theoretic thinking ahead, right,

through backwards induction, actors in through backwards induction.

Actors in society who know damages would be assigned ex post, in turn don't do things ex-ante

knowing that they would face damages, although that it depends on the certainty of

...