posted
I thought I'd let you know about a law that was passed this past August, but will not go into effect until February. I know that not all of you are parents and as such are not interested in the least with this, however, since I've joined the cottage industry after baby c's birth, I felt a connection to this on two levels.
I'm sure we all remember the recent problems with toy imports from China containing unsafe amounts of lead. Well, unfortunately these negative experiences with import have caused a bit of a knee-jerk law to be passed, giving the CPSC (Consumer Products Safety Commission) the ability to prevent unsafe toys from getting into the hands of our children. Everybody wants that, right? Sure! However, the new law, the Consumer Product Improvement Act of August, 2008, requires that not only ALL items intended for children under the age of 12 be tested for lead and phthalates (phthalates are found in PVC, for those who didn't know, and have been linked to reproductive issues amongst other things) AS WELL AS the final product. Example: I for some reason decide that I want to make teddy bears out of recycled children's clothes. In this instance, the children's clothes have already been tested for lead before they became children's clothes the first time, however, I get to send the finished product out for lead testing at a third party tester for a SECOND testing, costing me lots of money and jacking the price of said teddy bear up to about a grand.
That's just one example of the ludicrous ways that this law can be read. It's been made abundantly clear that the CPSIA is going to be read in the broadest sense of all applicable terms, as well. So 'manufacturer' includes small businesses as well as one man 'micro-manufacturers'. In addition third party mandatory testing of 'certain' products intended for children is pretty much being interpreted as all.
In addition, the burden is being placed on the manufacturer of the item as opposed to the manufacturer of the material and even if the material has been tested (countries other than the US have stricter guidelines and test materials before export), the items must still be tested by a third party after being made into whatever it's going to be. In other words, previous testing credentials are not enough. Once the material has been made into an item, that material has to undergo testing again before it is deemed safe. This puts the burden of testing soundly on the manufacturer's head, whether it be for a wooden hobby-horse or a school-book publisher.
Even though I do not sell handmade toys, furniture, educational material or clothing, I do sell yarn, and this could possibly have an affect on what little business I have, as people purchase yarn not only to make themselves things, but also to make into items for resell. I would not have to submit my yarn for testing as it is considered materials, but since some of my business is from the folks I just listed, they would not be able to purchase my product because the final item would be subject for testing once it was obvious it was intended for a childs use. Even though the yarn that I sell is wool, which is a fiber that is excluded from testing, it becomes included because I alter the yarn when I hand-paint it or dye it. (For the record, I use dyes that do not contain lead, as they are manufactured in the US for fabric dyeing.)
Small businesses are getting so much mention here since they are not able to use the 'mass submission' option of testing one from a batch made. In the case of micro-manufacturers or where one item is created at a time, this sort of testing is not feasible as the cost of the testing (between $300 and reaching into the thousands depending on how many parts have to be tested on the item). This will put many of them out of business.
When talking to others about this law, it's easy for them to say 'sacrifice a few for the betterment of many', however we are talking about a law that will put thousands of stay-at-home-moms and dads out of business and force them back into a job market during a period of high unemployment rate and a failing economy. It is not the small amount of items that these few produce that are the cause of the problems that we have encountered with lead and phthalates, it is the large overseas manufacturers that we import from. Why are we not monitoring only them, as we already have strict enough standards to go by in the United States? Instead, United States citizens are being made to suffer due to another country's lax standards.
I have written my senators and congressman about this issue. Please take the time to do the same, otherwise your kid's handmade Christmas gift could be considered 'toxic until proven lead-free' in February. I can add my letter I sent as a template, if anyone wants.
Here are some links to the CPSIA law and some of the requirements of the law. There's also a 'National Bankruptcy Day', which is a site maintained with updates on this issue.
posted
I got a letter back! Watermarked Congressional letterhead and all! This is what it said:
Dear Cassa,
Thank you for contacting me regarding third party testing and labeling requirements for toys that were included in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
As you may know, this legislation was signed into law by the President on August 14, 2008. The intent of the bill was to increase protections against lead in products specifically made for children. The bill also increased civil penalties against people who violate consumer product laws. Starting Feb. 10, 2009, every business involved in domestic toy sales must prove that independent laboratories have tested their products for excessive lead, or face fines up to $100,000 for each violation.
I believe that this legislation was needed in order to reassure American consumers that the toys they purchase are safe. However, I am deeply concerned that these regulations will hurt small producers and retailers who, as you point out, have an outstanding record of safety when it comes to manufacturing and selling toys. I am hopeful that as the 111th Congress convenes, legislation correcting this oversight will be introduced and passed.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I always appreciate hearing from my fellow Oklahomans on the issues about which they are concerned. Your input helps me do a better job representing the people of the Fourth District of Oklahoma. If I may ever be of any assistance to either you or your family, please do not hesitate to conttct me. I also encourage you to visit my website at www.house.gov/cole to keep up with what is happening in Congress, and to learn about the services my office can provide to the citizens of Oklahoma.
Sincerely, Tom Cole Member of Congress
**
So it looks like maybe my letter (and the dozens of others I'm sure he's gotten by now) had an effect! Yay! This is the first time that I've actually gotten a somewhat personalized letter back about an issue I contacted a state rep/congressman about, so you'll have to excuse my excitement.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This sort of sledgehammer is applied also in ag regulations. For instance, this year California put in place a law that mandates gassing of almonds because of the (extremely rare) risk of salmonella contamination. So as of then, there are basically no more "raw almonds" on the US market, even if the label says they are. Same dynamic works against those who produce, and those who want to consume, raw dairy products. Thus far it is still legal to produce raw dairy, but the farmers face a lot of harassment.
Big ag fouls the waters, little ag gets the ax, the consumer loses out.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hopefully the consumer won't lose out this time. I got my letter yesterday, but it was dated a week ago. This morning, there was a news report on one of our major local news stations. It sounds like this is starting to get some attention and maybe some of the congressmen who voted for this will actually go back and read the darned thing! I am curious as to how fast this will get looked at once Congress reconvenes.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The good news is, from what I have heard, this law doesn't apply if you have less than 10 of the same item available. So, if you make teddy bears, as long as they are made out of different fabrics, in different sizes, etc., they don't have to be tested.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: The good news is, from what I have heard, this law doesn't apply if you have less than 10 of the same item available. So, if you make teddy bears, as long as they are made out of different fabrics, in different sizes, etc., they don't have to be tested.
As it stands now, unfortunately, there are no provisions for unique items. EACH item has to be tested unless it is constructed out of the same material in a lot. Items can have a certificate that is for a specific lot, but unfortunately individual items are not excluded under the current wording.
ETA: I just re-read what you posted, and if it is made out of the same material, but in different sizes you're safe for not having to retest the same item. Unfortunately, most recycled items are not made out of the same material in various sizes, so my previous example listed is still a valid way that the rule is being read. Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, not according to what some investigative reporter in FL was told. I had a link somewhere... Hang on...
Here it is. Okay, this one actually talks about "one of a kind" items. Someone else mentioned 10; I'm not sure whether that answer was the one they were given when they asked personally.
I'm pretty sure they won't go after people selling only a few of the same item, especially if it is made of already lead-free materials.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Update from same reporter in regards to resale (thrift stores, consignment stores, eBay and Craigslist sellers, etc.)
As long as they feel confident the product is lead-free, they can sell it. Yeah, that's scientific.
Still no update from there on small sellers but there's another source document I have yet to plow through completely.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow! It sounds like a lot has happened this week regarding the CPSIA regulations! Yay! I'm glad that they added wording for thrift and consignment stores.
I will say though, that even with some of added exemptions I still think that the legislation is still too strict. I don't think that I'll be happy until they put some specific wording in there for micro-manufacturers and exempt toys/items that fit regulations from the European Union and Canada. They both have had higher safety standards than us on this issue for some time now.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I'm pretty sure they won't go after people selling only a few of the same item, especially if it is made of already lead-free materials.
You know, with as hard as they're acting about this law, I don't think that's quite enough to quell my concerns on this. I think that it needs to be outlined in the legislation. With as poor as this legislation was written, I think they should spend some time to reword the giant holes in it.
At the same time, though, I will say that it looks like the committee that handles this (the whole two of them) are scrambling around to try to patch it up now that Congress is back in session.
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: As long as they feel confident the product is lead-free, they can sell it. Yeah, that's scientific.
Nice! I completely agree with the sentiment. I can see resellers looking at an item and thinking 'Well, I get nice warm fuzzy feelings from this item. Surely it can't contain lead!'
quote:I don't think that I'll be happy until they put some specific wording in there for micro-manufacturers and exempt toys/items that fit regulations from the European Union and Canada. They both have had higher safety standards than us on this issue for some time now.
From what I am hearing, they're working on it, and it will eventually get there.
In the mean time I know some people who are just going to go on hiatus-- take a vacation, as it were, but hang onto their remaining inventory in the hopes it will be fixed quickly.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dollar stores sell a lot of toys manufactured in China. It would be good to test them--but the cost of doing this could drive all the Dollar stores out of buiness. What Congress needs to do is make funds available to pay for all this testing, not just mandate things that will drive small merchants into bankruptcy. But then, making funds available now might seem like another bailout.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really glad to see that they're going to be working on making it more small-businesses friendly and excluding materials that are unlikely to contain lead. I had written letters to my congresspeople and the only response I'd had was a form letter thanking me for supporting the CPSC regulations (which is pretty much what I expected from McCain's office ). I'm happy to know that I shouldn't have to go out of business or figure out how to market my children's items as "for dogs" or "for dolls".
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a recent interview with Julie Vallese, the now former spokesperson for the CPSC (effective yesterday). I found a bit of the interview a bit insulting when she starts talking about the 'misinformation' being floated around about the law and specifically names 'mommy bloggers'. Perhaps we wouldn't be giving out misinformation if the law was written in a way that made sense to the common layperson or if there was more open talk about the law from the CPSC. The interview talks more about consignment and second-hand stores, which as we know have been exempt from testing as of last week.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
). I'm happy to know that I shouldn't have to go out of business or figure out how to market my children's items as "for dogs" or "for dolls".
