Two major issues in the area of consumer product safety are who should protect the consumer and how much protection should be provided. Underlying both these questions are concerns for the consumer's freedom of choice and efficiency. Is the consumer the most efficient risk reducer or should risk reduction be left to the regulatory authorities? Given resources constraints which preclude the attainment of 100 percent protection, what is the optimal degree of protection. This paper applied economic analysis, including cost‐benefit analysis, to an examination of both issues. The advantages and disadvantages of the informed buyer approach versus the regulatory approach to the assignment of responsibility for consumer protection are first discussed. Cost‐benefit analysis is then applied to an evaluation of actual and hypothetical flammability standards for children's sleepwear and clothing. The two sleepwear standards proved cost effective in contrast to the two clothing standards where the costs of providing additional protection to the cosumer far exceeded the benefits. The results indicate the feasibility and utility of cost‐benefit analysis in determining how much protection should be pro