CLC and CPSIA

2010-03-09T10:01:00.000-08:00

I finally finished, at least for now, my "story" of our fight with CPSIA. It's available at www.CurrClick.com as a free download. The names have been changed -- but the details are all too true.

CPSIA 1 Year Later

2010-01-22T12:33:00.001-08:00

We learned about CPSIA at our shop just over 1 year ago. It's been long 12 months, I must say. There have been some temporary concessions made -- mostly in the forms of various stays for various manufacturers. But I have seen no true improvements, and certainly none for resellers. We continue to turn away numerous products that are clearly intended for children 12 and under, that we can't possibly know whether meet the new lead limits.

Most of the articles that I see are in response to the changes needed in the CPSIA, but occasionally I stumble upon one where the author seems to think that CPSIA is a good thing. This one was particularly troublesome to me: "How Art Thou Wrong, Ms. Northup? Let Me Count the Ways."

I left a rather lengthy response, but just in case my response doesn't stay there long, I decided I should post it here as well.

You were very quick to point out Ms Northup's "mistakes", while making plenty of your own:

"ALERT #1: Santa Claus doesn’t make bicycles; factory workers in China do." But this law doesn't only deal with imports, it deals with the many, safe products made by American workers.

"SPOILER ALERT #2: The law doesn’t “outlaw” zippers, hinges, and other components of kids’ products; it simply requires that they be made without lead."
No, it does not SIMPLY require that they be made without lead -- it also requires that all of those products and many, many more be TESTED to prove that they do not have lead -- testing that is very expensive, and not within the reach of many small companies, who have been making perfectly safe products for children. (Testing that is also required of products that have no risk of containing lead.)

"The law also increases CPSC’s authority to stop the import of hazardous children’s products" Again, you imply that the law only deals with imports, and only with hazardous products. Both are incorrect. Perfectly safe children’s products are being pulled from the market because of the overzealousness of this law. Many businesses, particularly smaller ones, in the United States are suffering.

"…and it bans the resale of recalled products.” Such a simple statement, that leaves out so much. First of all, it makes it dangerous for the resellers to sell much more than just recalled products. If it is a children’s product, we are expected to KNOW that it is lead-free before we sell it -- something that we cannot accurately do without expensive tests. And while banning the resale of recalled products sounds like a good idea – how are resellers to know if a product has been recalled? We run a risk with every child’s product we resell – again, causing many perfectly safe products to be pulled from the market.

“The new law is a strong and long-overdue health standard, and it is based on the scientific consensus that, where children are concerned, we should eliminate every possible lead threat.”
While eliminating every lead threat sounds like a nice goal, this law restricts lead in places that it has never been a threat – in bicycles, in ATVs, in the pages of old books – if there is lead in those places, it is not causing a threat to children, but it is banned due to CPSIA the same as in any places that it does present a risk.

“Far too many children suffered lead exposures while waiting for the new law.” Actually, the Center for Disease Control has gotten lead poisoning almost completely under control in the last decade. The vast majority of cases of lead poisoning have been from lead-in paint (banned long before CPSIA), lead-in gasoline (also banned long ago), and lead, primarily from those sources, that has leaked into the environment over the years. This law does very, very little to protect children.

CPSIA Update

2009-10-11T17:26:00.000-07:00

I wish I could say that my silence the last few months indicated that things had gotten better with CPSIA, but unfortunately that is not the case.

With August 10, 2009 came another CPSIA deadline that seems more determined to put businesses out of business than to protect children. Now the manufacturers of all children's products (intended primarily for children 12 and under) must label their products with tracking labels that meet the standards of the CPSIA -- labels that provide information on where the item was made, when it was made, and how it has been determined to meet the new CPSC lead and phthalate requirements. At least that is my understanding of the tracking label requirements...I was one of many who decided to stop manufacturing children's products, rather than try to jump through the new legislative hoops. (If we had figured out this August requirement, the February 2010 testing requirement would have caused us to stop manufacturing in less than 6 months.)

For our shop, that has meant the end of manufacturing several new items: baby slings, an Alphabet Fun book, and Lapbook Kits. It has been a bittersweet end to several items that had posed no risk to children, but have now been impossible to manufacture at the scale we did, according to the requirements of the CPSIA. We have already ceased the manufacturing of all of these items, and hope to have our current stock sold off completely before the February 2010 deadline makes even the existing items illegal.

Additionally, the CPSC has announced a "Resale Roundup" that seems determined to strike fear into the hearts and minds of resellers of children's products. Since the vast majority of our store's sales are actually used items -- most of which are intended for children, we have been following the resell requirements of this toxic law as closely as those for manufacturers. With the fact that the law was retroactive, much of what was on our shelves in February 2009 had to be removed, and many items that have been brought in since then have not made it to our shelves. It is tragic to see the number of books and other educational items that can no longer be bought and sold safely -- even though, again, none of them were ever shown to be dangerous...But they are now illegal.

Many of us, in and out of business, wait anxiously for Common Sense to return to Congress, the CPSC, and the manufacturing and selling of children's products.

Article: >New Safety Agency Chief Pledges Greater Openness

2009-07-13T20:37:00.000-07:00

Today this article appeared online at Consumer Affairs:

New Safety Agency Chief Pledges Greater Openness

It didn't take long in reading this article to boil my blood! In fact, it gets right in there with its subtitle: But industry lobbyists lie in wait for Inez Tenenbaum. It is already painfully obvious where this one is heading, so let me give the perspective of one of those who "lies in wait":

Mr. Hood actually deals with the recent issues with the Chinese Drywall before he attacks those of us who have been taking on the CPSIA. But right in the intro to that section, he claims: "Among the issues facing Tenenbaum are Chinese drywall and pressure from industries and retailers hoping to win exemptions from the Children's Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), passed last year in response to a wave of recalls of toys and children's products containing dangerous levels of lead."

Assumption number one here is that this "wave of recalls" is of dangerous products containing "dangerous levels of lead". And one can't help but hear the disgust in his voice as he says that we are giving Ms. Tenenbaum "pressure from industries and retailers hoping to win exemptions..." Oh, shame on us, the child-endangering retailers and industries who would pressure her for exemptions so that we can continue to make and sell our unsafe products.

But wait, he hasn't really fully attacked yet. Wait until the section on Children's Books where he accuses us even more directly: "In what is perhaps a more bizarre situation, small retailers, thrift shops and charities are claiming they should be exempt from the CPSIA's restrictions, which are meant to protect children from mental retardation that can result from exposure to lead..."

So let me see if I have this straight. As a reseller, who is trying to get an exemption from the ridiculous restrictions of the CPSIA, I am willing to risk causing mental retardation to my smallest customers, because I am putting my profit margin above their safety. What utter hogwash!

But then he goes all out: "The protestors don't argue that lead is not harmful or that children are not at risk, they simply contend it is too much trouble for them to comply with the law." Excuse me! Where does Mr. Hood get his "facts"? We do argue that children are not at risk from the used books that we sell, or from the many other wonderful educational products that we can no longer sell. It is not that it is "too much trouble"! It is the simple fact that children are NOT safer because of the requirements of this law.

And for the final zing to booksellers and librarians who are arguing for the exemption of their very safe products (otherwise known as books), he adds: "And why is that, one might ask? After all, numerous children's books have been recalled because they contain dangerous levels of lead-based paint, objects that can come loose and cause choking in infants and other hazards. For example..."

No, Mr. Hood, "numerous" children's books have not been recalled, not when you consider the numbers of books in circulation. And the examples that he uses are not "ordinary books" at all -- every one of them is outside the realm of "ordinary books" and yet he is arguing that our perfectly safe product, children's books (as well as many other safe products made with ink and paper) need to be submitted to the same tests and restrictions of other products that have at least some track record of risk. (Though none of them have caused the types of problems that could be guessed from the hysteria about the "need" for the CPSIA!

It is a shame that Mr. Hood has provided no avenue for comments, or method for being reached...One can only hope that his next article dealing with the Consumer Product Safety "Improvement" Act is better researched and better written than this one.

Toy Story -- Another Annoying Author Weighs in on CPSIA

2009-07-11T17:31:00.000-07:00

This article appeared online last winter in the Washington Monthly:
Toy Story: Does the reform of a small agency herald the return of competent government oversight?

When I started reading the article, I was actually thrown off as to the author's real position, when he started: "In late July, when the presidential race was a dead heat and the country’s banks were not yet nationalized, Congress—opposed by just four Republicans—quietly voted for the return of big government." When I hear "return of big government", I think negative thoughts, so I mistakenly thought at this point that the author was against the passage of the CPSIA.

He cleared up my misunderstanding quickly. Well, maybe not so quickly. First he went through the history of the CPSC for several paragraphs. And then his true position on the law finally came out, or maybe he didn't mean these section the way it comes across to me, someone who has been fighting the CPSIA for many months now.

I sent the following letter to the Washington Monthly today in response to it:

I probably found out about the CPSIA law last winter about the same time this article was written, but I just now encountered it. I hope it is not too late to comment on it.

I was curious as to whether or not Mr Blake has done any additional research on the effects that this law is having on companies -- this law that he so eloquently praised several months ago?

I hope that his comments were made in honest ignorance to what this law is really doing: "The biggest issue, however, has always been whether the president and Congress even want the CPSC to succeed. With the passage of this summer’s legislation, it seems they finally do. The new law offers a realistic approach to oversight, mandating third-party lab testing for all children’s products—a reasonable alternative to keeping tabs on the vast network of foreign supply chains or simply handing responsibility over to the companies themselves."

I hope Mr. Blake is just not familiar with what these "realistic approaches to oversight" really mean...Is he not aware of what all this third-party lab testing "for all children's products" really involves? I hope that is the case!

For one thing, he talks of "the vast network of foreign supply chains" as if that is the only group being affected by the CPSIA...No, this law also affects domestic companies...And it doesn't just affect the bigger companies...It affects ALL companies manufacturing products for children 12 and under...including those who are producing one-of-a-kind handmade and homemade items. I would love to know how Mr. Blake thinks that these testing requirements are a "realistic approach to oversight".

If he would like to do some more research on this article, he could start with the CPSC's own website. A second website he might want to check out is: www.whatisthecpsia.com.

Thank you for your time.

Consumer Union and the CPSIA

2009-07-08T19:51:00.000-07:00

The Consumer Union blog is weighing in on CPSIA again:
CPSC fines nine companies $530,000 for lead violations

My response to their article:
"Yes, considering the penalties that are authorized under the current CPSIA (Consumer Product Safety "Improvement" Act), these penalties are "paltry". And the crime doesn't have to be a "flagrant" violation...I can receive a $100,000 fine for having a book on my store shelves that contains too much lead - I don't even have to actually sell it, and no child has to even have the potential to be hurt by it! (Since no child has EVER gotten lead poisoning from eating a book!)

I am a mother, and I don't want to see children put at risk...But the CPSIA law does so much more than restrict products that could put children at risk...It has already made perfectly safe products illegal, and will make even more products illegal when the next two deadlines kick in.

Shame on the Consumer Union for helping Congress pass such an overreaching, outrageous law!"

Protect Children from Congress

2009-07-01T16:19:00.000-07:00

From Downsize DC:
"Congress has entangled the entire U.S. economy in a web of back-breaking regulation because of an isolated problem with lead contamination in Chinese products. The "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act" could make criminals out of thrift store managers, librarians, and craft hobbyists. It will bankrupt many small businesses and grant increased market share to big firms, some of whom were responsible for the contaminated Chinese products. This new law will harm the economy, hurt low-income families, and increase the cost of raising a child. The risk of lead poisoning is already almost non-existent in the American economy. We don't need this dangerous new law. Please join me in asking Congress to repeal the "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act."

I added my personal comments to the letter I sent through Downsize DC:
"CPSIA is hurting children, not helping them. It is not based on scientific evidence, nor common sense. Much damage has already been done by CPSIA, and the damage will continue to worsen if it is not repaired before the next major deadlines.

The presence of lead is not dangerous to children, the ingestion of lead is! And yet lead is being banned in countless places that children do not chew! And tests for it are being required in countless places that do not contain lead.

For the sake of children, please fix this law!"

"Lead-footed Safety Issues"

2009-06-25T16:25:00.000-07:00

Carter Wood's article in The Washington Times is much better put.

You can tell right from the start that Carter understands the law better than Congress does: "It's a safe bet that no member of Congress has ever given a speech proudly endorsing a bill to close mom-and-pop businesses, hurt low-income shoppers, cause libraries to discard children's books and ban products ranging from dirt bikes to ballpoint pens."

It's a well written article, summarizing many of the issues with CPSIA and ending with a comment about the work ahead for the new chairperson of the CPSC, Ms. Tenenbaum. "Her tasks ahead include not just regulation and enforcement, but persuasion. She must convince Congress of what is already painfully clear to businesses large and small: It's time to fix the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act."

Now, if we can just get Congress to listen...

July 2009 Good Housekeeping Comments on CPSIA

2009-06-25T16:15:00.000-07:00

Wow, has it really been 3 weeks since I blogged about CPSIA?!? Hard to imagine. Well unfortunately, there is still no good news to report in this department and coverage of it remains spotty at best.

Good Housekeeping's recent edition has a short reference to it this month in the "On Your Side" feature. Unfortunately, it is not particularly accurate. The entire column can be read on Etsy. It starts out with these unfortunate words: ""Good news: Congress has passed the CPSIA, which started going into effect this year..."

My response to the Good Housekeeping editor was:

"I'm afraid I have to disagree with Stacy's response to the concerns about safe products for children. This is NOT good news. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) was not needed -- at least not in the form that Congress voted for it last summer. Unsafe products were already being recalled at a very acceptable rate, it did not take this law to do that. Additionally, CPSIA has many unintended consequences, including the very unacceptable loss of many children's products that were perfectly safe -- but that cannot meet the outrageous new requirements of this toxic law. Additionally, some products, like bicycles and ATV's will become less safe for children as a result of this overarching law, not more safe!

There is much misinformation circulating about CPSIA, please do not add to it.

Thank you.
Catherine Jaime
Mother of 12

Video: Menendez on CPSC Amendment

2009-06-04T20:39:00.000-07:00

Senator Menendez is speaking to the Senate about an amendment to the Consumer Product Safety bill. He is proud of the work they have done that will now prohibit members of the CPSC from taking trips paid for by agencies they regulate ("toxic travel" as he later calls it!) In fact he goes to great lengths in this 5 1/2 minute speech last June to tie the problems we were supposedly having with all these toxic toys being recalled to the unethical behavior of members of the CPSC traveling on the dimes of business big wigs.

In fact, Senator Menendez brags about the fact that Congress has recently outlawed travel paid for by lobbyists, and obviously the CPSC should be held to that high standard as well. (I found it highly ironic that the Congress has only recently met this standard themselves, but they are "shocked" and "appalled" that the CPSC isn't already meeting this standard?!?

Senator Menendez of course has to point out the outstanding (as in high) "number of items that were recalled last year because they were deemed unsafe for American Consumers to use -- after they were placed in our stores, bought by our families and used by our children...And the most common victims of these regulatory failures were children..." And he went on to ominously announce that "this year is shaping up to be just as tragic...Isn't somebody supposed to be watching out to make sure doesn't happen?"..."But the CPSC is busy doing other things..."

As a mother of many children for many, many years, I found his comments to be insulting and demeaning, both to myself as a parent and to those in the CPSC who are being asked to do an impossible job. Do we require every toy to be sold in this country to be stamped with the approval of our government agencies to be able to determine its appropriateness for our children? Absolutely not! As a parent, I can handle that job just fine. I do not want my options in toys (let alone clothes, books, etc.) to be limited to the very small number of items that can make their way through whatever legislative tunnel the Congress can dream up!

The problems we are facing here are not due to toxic toys or toxic travel but to toxic legislators! I would like to see our Congressmen reread their pocket Constitutions, and go back to passing laws on the very limited number of things they are supposed to be legislating!

Video: Harry Reid on Product Safety, Dem Primary and more

2009-06-04T20:24:00.000-07:00

This 2 minute interview w/ Harry Reid on CapNews.Net in March 2008 actually only contains a minute or so at the beginning about CPSIA before he goes into other political topics.

Senator Reid is asked "What are some of the key aspects of the Consumer Product Safety legislation passed by the Senate yesterday?"

He responds with typical fear mongering: "First of all it covers a wide range of important products and products generally. Now we focused on toys because it was so terrible what happened right before Christmas."

Mr. Reid then goes on to badmouth the Bush administration for shrinking the CPSC (wasn't that a bipartisan effort that had been going on before Bush too?) He mocked the single tester for toys at the CPSC's ability to test the millions of toys that are imported.

We've changed that now: We've increased the budget for CPSC by some 50%, we've put penalties, and now its possible to get these things off the market quickly. We have third party reviews of these products..."

If this was all I knew about CPSIA, I would think it dealt with dangerous toys imported from overseas...And I would be so, so wrong!

Video: This Week in Washington

2009-06-03T21:24:00.000-07:00

This short and sweet video was done by the Heritage Foundation in March 2008. It is just over 2 minutes long, and the first 1 1/2 minutes are actually about the surge in Iraq and the Budget Defect and Bush Tax Cuts.

It is not until the 1:30 point that CPSIA comes up. Right away you see the difference between the attitude of this speaker, Brian Darling, and Lou Dobbs in the other video -- here the sign says "Expanding Bureaucracy will not Increase Consumer Safety"...which pretty much summarizes the next 40 seconds.

Brian mentions that the Senate is debating a bill in Congress that will expand the CPSC and empower state Attorney Generals to sue companies. He also talks of the ability under this law to imprison business owners for unknowing violations of the CPSC rules.

He ends strong with "Conservatives do not want to criminalize capitalism, further empower trial lawyers, and double the size of yet another federal entity." The only question that was left in my mind after this brief video was: If only 3 senators voted against this bill, what does that say about the number of Conservatives in the Senate in 2008???

Video: Dobbs Rants About Product Safety Chief's Comments

2009-06-03T20:55:00.000-07:00

This video is aptly named, it is 1 1/2 minutes of Lou Dobbs ranting against Nancy Nord in February 2008. (Difference between what he is doing here and what Congress did in some of the previous videos, he is talking about her, they were talking to her...)

Sign behind Dobbs says "Who's Protecting You?"

Dobbs starts right in on her, asking, "Nord, is she as imbecilic as she appears to be, as absolutely insensitive to American consumers, as lacking the judgment to run a federal agency designed and created to protect the American consumer...This woman is beyond belief." (No, I'm sorry, as I was watching this video, I couldn't help thinking that Dobbs was beyond belief!)

Then Christine Romans (don't know who she is, sorry) pointed out that Nord is saying that "all the recalls show that the system is working..."

That's as far as she gets before Dobbs cuts her off and says, "That its working?" "How many did her agency initiate?" And then he goes off on her not being willing to answer that question, as if somehow that proves his point of how incompetent she is.

Then he brings up trade, "How can she say it isn't a trade issue...Toys that aren't being inspected...

Romans interjects, "Trade Policy and Safety are 2 separate issues" (presumably quoting Nord's position on it.

And then Dobbs starts again, "We're overwhelmed with imports, how can it be anything but a trade issue as well?" And then he starts insulting her intelligence. Funny, it was his I kept wondering about during the video.

I'm not sure what Nancy Nord did to bring on Dobb's ire, but I can't help watching this and thinking that this is way, way out of line!

Video: Stop Toxic Toy Import Campaign

2009-06-02T20:09:00.000-07:00

This 20-minute video is from January 2008.

This video is about 1 of 100 events held across the U.S. on January 16, 2008 on the "National Day of Action on Toxic Trade". It was organized by the United Steelworkers, who were protesting the import of "toxic toys". (But as I watched the video, I felt like I had finally found the money trail for CPSIA -- this Union group was using the "toxic toys" as an excuse; what they were really fighting was what they were calling "toxic trade". The irony is that because of the CPSIA that they fought so hard for, more jobs will be lost here!)

Signs displayed included "Get the Lead Out -- Stop Toxic Imports" and "Protect our Kids -- Save American Jobs"

There were numerous speakers out for this event on this cold January day. The first was from the Portland Jobs with Justice. She lost no time in talking about the need to "fight for workers' rights" and the "effects on our families' health and safety... but also on jobs". She made it very clear that her real complaint was with increased globalization.

The next speaker was from Sweat Free NW Campaign. She spoke of the "devastating impact of trade policies" reflected in 6 million toys recalled...and "declining working conditions". She pointed out that "cheap goods should not come at the expense of our communities".

Next was the gentleman from the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign. He complained that 30 or 40 years ago 90% of toys sold in U.S. were made here, versus 90% imported today. He also stated that Congress needs to fund the CPSC and the FDA. And he pointed out that "cheap products have big costs".

The speaker from Oregon Public Interest Research Group was adamant that "we need to ban lead completely in children's products". (Of course he offered no evidence for his claims, it just seemed to fit right in with everything else being said there that day.) He was followed by a speaker from Working America in Oregon.

The final speaker, from the Oregon AFL-CIO, blamed President Bush for much, and then claimed that 6 million toy recalls allow us to look into the souls of the multinational corporations who clearly only care about profit. He ended by leading a chant of "America first, not corporations".

All in all, an interesting 20 minute look at why we are not getting anywhere with Congress on fixing the real problem here -- this toxic law!

Video: Rep. Schakowsky On Protecting Children

2009-06-02T19:58:00.000-07:00

I'm expecting more of the same with this CPSIA video. Let's see if I'm right...

Another hard to hear video. Congresswoman Scharowsky renews the attack on the CPSC, and especially Acting Chairwoman Nord, who she complains is "content with the status quo". (If there was some true evidence of the status quo having been a problem, these complaints may have been worth listening to, but Congress has done a lot of attacking of Nord and the CPSC, and shown very little to substantiate their claims.)

Ms. Scharowsky also complains about the large number of dangerous toys tested by the Chicago Tribune -- so many that tested so far about the "reasonable limits" that Congress was going to impose with CPSIA. Problem is, those were toys that had already been in the market for many years -- and yet there was no evidence that they had hurt anyone! Where was/is the support for her claim that these toys are so harmful? It doesn't exist.

Video: Rep. DeGette On Protecting Children

2009-06-02T19:45:00.000-07:00

Oh boy, we get to hear Representative DeGette again. Video available, like the others, at whatisthecpsia.com and on you tube.

This is a very badly recorded section, the audio and video don't match up. But through the distortion, there is really just more of the same. Congresswoman DeGette complains of the rising number of product recalls of late, and applauds the move in the CPSIA bill to "almost double the funding for the CPSC". She is also excited at the idea that they will be "requiring independent, third-party testing" under CPSIA and she congratulates Congress on this "crucial step in making sure kids are safe from dangerous products."

One has to wonder, watching these types of "shows" repeatedly, whether these Congressmen actually believed their own rhetoric, or whether they were just confident that they could pull a fast one on wary consumers.

So much is made here, and in so many other speeches, of the unsafe products on the market, and Congress' responsibility to save us from those products. But aren't the increasing number of recalls an indication that the laws that existed prior to CPSIA were doing their jobs -- as well as the CPSC itself, who also take a constant hit of criticism from Congress.

This video falls in the category of "don't bother with" in my humble opinion. (Of course, I would have said the same about this bill, before it became a law, but I didn't get a chance!)

Video: Rep. Rush on Protecting Children

2009-06-01T20:26:00.000-07:00

Ok, let's see what fun tonight's CPSIA videos bring us!

This video could actually serve as an introduction to someone who had missed much of what got us to this point with Congress.

Representative Rush applauds the 4 members of Congress that brought us H.R.4040: Dingell, Barton, Stearns, and Rush. He proudly points out that this bill dramatically rewrites the Consumer Product Safety Act (a gross understatement to say the least) and the Hazardous Substance Act (considering what has suddenly become declared as hazardous substances, I would say so.)

He mentions that the bill "finally restores the CPSC to its rightful place of prominence and gives it the necessary tools to grapple with the global marketplace and to protect American consumers, particularly our children." But everything we've seen and heard from the CPSC since at least January of 2009 seems to say otherwise. The CPSIA has not restored CPSC to that place, and given it the necessary tools. CPSIA has put Congress in the place of the CPSC, and taken away tools from it.

Mr. Rush then goes on to mention the 8 months of work that had gotten them to this point (I think the House as a whole was about to vote on it for the 1st time). We might all wish that they would put as much energy into fixing the mess they've made as they did into making the mess in the first place!

He then brags that the CPSIA gives us the "strictest lead standards in the world...requiring certification and testing". If the lack of those standards, and those certification and testing requirements had made our children unsafe, that would be something to brag about indeed. But almost 4 months into a major portion of this law's requirements, and it safe to say that children are less safe as a result of it, not more safe. And Congress' rhetoric aside, children were not getting killed or seriously injured because of all the toxic toys that it would take Congress to protect them from!

Mr. Rush ends by saying he "cannot emphasize enough the bipartisan nature of this bill". There we would have to agree with him, to a point. Getting the bill passed was indeed bi-partisan, since almost no one from either party understood the problems this bill would cause when they voted on it last year. But now, almost a year later, the problems have surfaced, Congress has been notified (100s of 1000s of times in fact), and the problem is no longer truly bi-partisan. Almost without exception, the only Congressmen and Senators writing and supporting amendments to this law are Republican. The Democrats, almost without fail, are refusing to fix this toxic law!

Video: Thomson West Product Safety Survey/Intervie w

2009-05-31T17:47:00.000-07:00

Let's see what fun the next video brings us.

This is actually my favorite video so far. It is effectively a monologue/interview with Thomson West, a former Executive Director of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. He is articulate and knowledgeable, and he answers a very important series of questions:

1. Are people more worried about product safety? "Yes"
2. What is the real state of product safety today? It is "better than it's been for quite a few years." There are "more standards...regulators...awareness..ability to share more information about products."
3.How well equipped is the CPSC to monitor product safety? "All Congress/all Presidents (regardless of parties) have allowed the agency to shrink to less than half of what it was when I was there."...this with a drastic increase in the number of people in this country and... products...
4.What advice would you give to consumers about product safety? "Make sure products are appropriate for child - don't disregard age warnings...and read the labels."

That was it. Short and sweet and to the point. No hype, no scare message. And this from a man who's job was product safety!

Video: DeGette investigates product safety

2009-05-31T16:34:00.000-07:00

Next video

Starts right in with Congresswoman DeGette asking about food safety. This video is just over 6 minutes long. First 5 minutes were about food. It also started acting up during last minute or so, so not sure what was said, but my guess would be more food than CPSIA. Not one I would recommend bothering with if your interest is just the timeline of CPSIA.

Video: DeGette works to strengthen product safety

2009-05-31T16:10:00.000-07:00

Next video in series at whatistheCPSIA website and on you tube.

This video deals with both unsafe food problems and unsafe toys. Much is made of the "flood of hazardous products" and the "safety of imports" and "how the government regulates imports". As a mother, I understand those concerns, especially after the rash of recalls of the toys from China. But how did Congress go from these legitimate concerns to the massively toxic bill that became CPSIA? That's where I get confused! The video goes on to talk about needing "more overseas inspectors" and discusses forcing "companies to have products certified". But again, at that point, we're still dealing specifically with imported toys.

The video title mentions Congresswoman DeGette. She doesn't appear until 2 minutes into the 2 1/2 minute video, but at that point the sound cut out, at least when I was watching it. So I have no idea what "words of wisdom" she added here. If anyone else could actually hear what she said, please let me know.

Video: Hearing on Consumer Safety Legislation: DeGette's Questions

2009-05-30T19:02:00.001-07:00

This "exciting" video shows Representative DeGette hammering Nancy Nord. (You can also go straight to the video here on you tube.) I ponder again how she stuck it out in this job as long as she did! Nancy, we applaud you!

DeGette starts right in on Nord, I want to ask you about the "...travel issue...appearance of impropriety?"

Then she changed her attention to the real issues at hand, also want to, "Ask you about these recalls...recalls are going up..." Would you agree that it's "because of increasing imports from abroad?"

Nord: No, the overall recalls have been inching up for years.
Nord: "Yes...lead paint violations were for Chinese made products." But then Nord wisely pointed out that the toys that caused all the ruckus broke existing laws. (Someone please remind me what positive things were accomplished with this new and "wonderful" CPSIA?)

Video: Hearing on Consumer Safety Legislation: Schakowsky's Opening

2009-05-30T18:35:00.000-07:00

This video can be found at whatisthecpsia's video channel or on you tube. It is the most depressing one I've watched so far tonight.

It is from the early days of the drafting of CPSIA (Nov 2007), and is an Opening Statement in a Hearing on the legislation by Representative Schawosky.

Ms. Schawosky is very proud of the work they had done on the legislation at this point, pointing out that "...millions and millions of products that have been recalled and found dangerous to our children in the face of their death and injury....these products that have been hurting our children...toys poisoning and cribs killing their babies...Americans should be able to trust government to protect them..."

It was a rather disturbing display of exaggeration and finger-pointing...Based on this speech, one would have thought that hundreds of children had been poisoned by the recent rash of toxic toys...and that corporations had little to no concern for the safety of our children. And that the law was only going to be designed to protect small children from these dangerous toys and cribs.

I wonder how we got from this point to a law that deals with ALL children's products, up through the age of 12? Including products like books and clothes and bikes that had never caused the types of problems she was referring to?

I am a mother. I love my children. Frankly I trust myself to protect them much better than the government or big corporations!

Video: NAM's Timmons Discusses CPSC legislation with Bloomberg TV

2009-05-30T18:05:00.000-07:00

2nd video at www.whatisthecpsia.com Or you can go right to this particular one here at you tube.

Bloomberg, Money and Politics with representatives from the National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Pirg, representing consumer "interests".

Question asked was does the CPSC Legislation (CPSIA) give the CPSC too much power?
Consumer person says, no, and consumer groups are encouraged. He also says we need to strengthen the CPSC so they can go after "Corporate wrong doers" He also complains that there is too cozy a relationship between the CPSC and multi-national corporations..."It's a real mess and wrong doers are not held responsible."

The Manufacturer says that the Civil penalties go too far, and that "51 cops on the beat" (State Attorney General offices plus CPSC) is not a good idea -- especially since State AG's can be politically motivated. He agreed that the CPSC needed more resources and that Congress and the Executive Branch needed to work cooperatively.

I'm disturbed by the generalizations that the Pirg guy makes, especially grouping all of us effected by this law into the same boat with the multi-national corporations who actually caused the problems, and to so quickly label us as "wrong doers"...Anyone want to guess which gentlemen this Mom agreed with?

Video: Senate Hearing on Product Safety

2009-05-30T17:00:00.001-07:00

Well, I've started watching the videos that have been posted on www.whatisthecpsia.com's website. Can also go right to this one on you tube here.

The first one was depressing, to say the least. Watching Senator McCaskill rip into Nancy Nord, the acting Chairperson of the CPSC (at that time) was outrageous! The Senator tells her, "You have got the parents of America that are outraged that they are buying products from manufacturers like Mattel...part of our cultural land of toys in America, and they are scared and this article has exposed..."

Wait a minute, Ms. McCaskill, I don't know of any parents who were running scared over the "toy scare", and as a leader in the homeschool community, I know LOTS of parents! And none of us would have been blaming Ms. Nord or the CPSC for the toy troubles. We would have been blaming Mattel.

The only positive part of that first video was watching Senator Nelson, another Democrat, come to the defense of Nord, and explaining that her hands were tied by the White House.

The Original CPSIA

2009-05-27T17:02:00.000-07:00

Every time I need to double check which of our representatives voted for this toxic law, I have to hunt for it again. So, once and for all, or again, as the case may be, I'm putting the link to it here in my blog: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4040

GovTrack is the place to find the bill itself, its toxic timeline, and the list of the representatives and senators who voted for it (Oh, and the 4 that voted against it -- Kudos to Representative Ron Paul of Texas, Senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Jon Kyle of Arizona, and Thomas Coburn of Oklahoma for voting against it!!!)

Check out "What Is the CPSIA" Website

2009-05-17T14:41:00.000-07:00

For more information to specific questions you might have about CPSIA, be sure to check out a new website: What is the CPSIA? Explaining the Facts and Dispelling the Myths about the CPSIA http://www.whatisthecpsia.com

There are questions and answers for many of the issues surrounding CPSIA. If you have any specific questions about this law, that you don't see answered there, let me know here, or leave a comment there. We are trying to make the website as comprehensive as possible.

Lawmakers Call For Clear Toy Safety Standards

2009-05-16T20:26:00.000-07:00

After having sat through all 17 videos of the briefing of the Effects of CPSIA on Small Businesses conducted this week by the Committee on Small Business:
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, I was very disappointed to read the Chairman's Press Release on the briefing. Did Mr. Jason Altmire actually sit through that entire briefing and still write up such a release?

The briefing was heart-wrenching...to see the numbers spelled out, and the damage detailed that this law is doing, unchecked by Congress. And then to have Mr. Altmire blame the CPSC instead of Congress. All I can say is, what audacity!

Stop blaming Nord, and the CPSC. This is Congress' mess, and Congress needs to get the lead out and fix this toxic law before even more damage is done.

Briefings #14 - 17

2009-05-16T17:20:00.000-07:00

Briefing #14
These next videos showed questions and answers for various witnesses that had appeared earlier. I was impressed with the answers, I was not impressed with the questions themselves. They made me wonder if the committee had fallen asleep during the earlier testimonies...

Ms. Lang was asked about the small batches that she produces. What type of savings/relief would there be if she could rely on the tests conducted by her component suppliers instead of having to test the end product? She pointed out that not having to test for lead would be very helpful, but she also wisely noted that most fabric would not be tested for phthalates, since it isn't generally intended specifically for teething products -- so would also require an exemption to that requirement.

Back to Ms. Shreiber, and her personalized items -- everything would have to be tested under the current law -- couldn't even quantify the formidable costs under current restrictions. CPSIA, as stands, will result in her closing her business.

In regards to older items, being resold, question was asked: "Any economically feasible way for resellers to determine which products could be legally sold?" Her response, "Economically, I believe there is not." The cost of one testing gun, not including labor, is around $20,000.

And the last question was particularly troubling: "Overly burdensome regulations can put small businesses on an uneven playing field...Small businesses don't have the compliance resources..." Can you address that? (What had they been doing so far?)

Briefing #15
Has the stay of enforcement on testing helped or not?
Yes and no. It has helped those with lead free products that don't have to test for now. But for those who have lead issues, or in the case of resellers, the stay has not helped at all.

"If nothing changes in the law, when the stay is over, you may have to shut down your business?" "No, I WILL have to shut down if the law is not changed."

Briefing #16
This questioner seemed to me to be asking questions that shouldn't have needed to be asked, let alone answered:
"If one of problems CPSIA tried to resolve was lead in toys from overseas manufacturing, does it make sense to you that most of the testing labs are overseas?"

"The FDA has guidelines to exempt certain food items, would something similar help for CPSIA?"

And I really loved this question: "Has the Commission provided sufficient guidance?" (We want you to blame them for your problems, not us here in Congress who wrote the law...)

Briefing #17
The Chairman promises, "This is just the first step...And we're going to work to try to come up with a solution to this problem....Members of the committee have 5 days to submit written statements."

Briefing Video #13

2009-05-16T16:59:00.000-07:00

David McCubbin of McCubbin Hosiery came before the Committee to discuss the impact of the CPSIA requirements on his and similar businesses.

He spoke of the CPSIA as well intentioned, but that it "has had massive consequences". He went on to explain that the "legislation's broad scope has impacted thousands of products for which the measured concerns are not material."

He went on to explain that no reliable tests even existed for textiles, and that these tests have caused "considerable expense" and "strained relations with customers and suppliers".

Mr. McCubbin continued, pointing out that these lead content limits have..."been laid upon the apparel industry in such blanket fashion without regard to any historical evidence or suggested likelihood that harmful amounts of lead are found in the products. In short, we are asked to search at considerable expense for something that does not exist nor has been alleged to exist."

The tests alone will cost his company in excess of 1/2 million dollars in the first 12 months, and that's before the undue burdens that will be caused by the GCC and tracking label requirements.

How CPSIA Affects Small Businesses Video 12

2009-05-15T08:35:00.001-07:00

Ok, back to watching the videos of the briefing. The more I watch, the more troubled I am at the stubbornness of those who have the power to fix this disaster and sit back and do nothing.

I was shook up by the previous videos where the women with home businesses discussed their losses under this law, and by the video with the woman from the Resellers Franchises. But for some reason, this next video upset me even more. Maybe I'm just hitting saturation point on being able to deal with the foolishness of those who still support this disastrous legislation:

Video #12 -- Mr. Vittone, Vice President of SwimWays, a small, family owned company employing about 70 employees, and offering over 100 different products. Mr. Vittone discussed the double whammy his company got in 2008 from the economy and the CPSIA, which together created "a perfect economic storm for us."

He focused on the phthalate ban, and its effect on his company, since it is giving them the most difficulty. For their company at least, the timing of the phthalate ban was the single biggest disaster of the CPSIA. Similar bans in other locations have given businesses 13 - 15 months to comply, giving them an opportunity to go through their existing inventory. CPSIA gave them less than 5 months -- during an off season of a very seasonal business. And then, with the General Counsel Opinion applying the phthalate ban to only new merchandise, they had some breathing room -- until a New York Judge overruled the CPSC, giving their business, and the businesses they supply less than 4 days to find and withdraw implicated inventory. Needless to say, this law has already been costly beyond belief to this company and many others -- and children are no safer because of it!

More for CPSC and against Nord

2009-05-15T07:01:00.000-07:00

Nancy Nord is the acting head of the CPSC, and as the videos from the briefing yesterday showed, she is doing as good a job there as anyone possibly could with the hand she has been dealt by Congress. She is not the enemy, and she is not week.

But so many out there in media land seem to miss no opportunity to criticize her and the work she is doing. Now that Obama has picked his choice for her replacement, many are at it again. Yesterday's Sun Sentinel is another example: "Obama's pick for product safety chief holds promise, but has big task ahead"

The article starts by lauding Obama's pick, Tenenbaum, which is fine; we're all entitled to our opinion. But it doesn't stop there. It goes on to criticize how the CPSC has fallen down on the job. It does give some of the blame to Congress, but only in regards to the financial issues it has had: "who decimated its budget and staff in an era of advanced globalization."

But then the author goes on to blame Nancy Nord for the current problems at the CPSC: "But much of the blame falls on an uninspired, meek leadership that refused to require more from manufacturers and fight for consumer interests."

I beg to disagree. Nancy Nord is fighting hard for consumer interests, as she tries to help us keep the countless small businesses going that Congress has jeopardized with the CPSIA. Congress has tied her hands with the legislation they passed last summer, and then blamed her for the mess that has ensued. This author can no more make that Nord's fault than Congress can!

But I think the most telling and truthful portion of the article is at the end: "Tenenbaum would have...a golden opportunity, too, to create a sea change in the culture and effectiveness of a critical agency that has the potential to reach into every American's home through the products it regulates."

If that doesn't inspire us to keep on Congress to get CPSIA fixed, and sooner rather than later, I guess not much will!

How CPSIA Effects Small Businesses 7 - 11

2009-05-14T18:48:00.000-07:00

I watched the next 5 videos of the Briefing:

Briefing #7: Mr. Thompson says to Nord: You have “a commonsense attitude with this, which is refreshing in this town.” However the problems I am hearing from small biz are the testing of components with no lead and labeling requirements.

Nord: “Permanent tracking labels required by law to go on all children’s products in August, “to extent practicable”. We want to be focusing on products that are dangerous and have history of recalls – not others—but can’t distinguish under law.

#8: Just an announcement that they were adjourning the meeting until 11:30, and thanking Nancy Nord for coming.

#9 Miss Shriver, Lucy’s Pockets (children’s clothing and other children’s products): “As CPSIA now stands, I as well as thousands of crafters, seamstresses, artists and others that market safe handmade items for kids will be put out of business….We are looking to you to make legislative changes that will allow us that have been making safe products to continue to do so.”

Miss Shriver went on to give several example of testing costs she has investigated: $900 - $1275 to test one $20 bib set; $300 to test a $5 bow; and $675 to test a $9 head band…And because items are one of a kind, cannot do batch testing.

If the testing requirements do not put businesses like her out of business, the labeling requirements will. “We use safe materials and make safe products…We are asking for Common Sense in the Law! We’re safe – we want to be legal.”

And Miss Shriver’s final comment is “CPSIA is going to absolutely kill the Handmade Industry and the ramifications are beyond definition.”

Video #10, Mr. Thompson introduces one of his constituents, Mrs. Susie Lang, of Starbright Baby Teething Giraffes. “As the mother of a 2-year-old, I admire Congress efforts to draft a law that protects children from excessive amounts of lead in toys.” Mrs. Lang went on to explain that the major problems with the law for her business include the unit testing requirements and the labeling requirements, and “the fallacy of assuming that everything is toxic until proven safe.” She went on to share what the testing costs would be for her, and exclaimed, “I don’t know how it can be done by any crafter or small business.”

Video #11 The Director of Once Upon a Child Stores, representing over 500 franchises, and over 5,000 employees – who are scrambling to figure out how to comply. “The ill executed implementation of this legislation has brought fear into the industry…The handbook is too general to determine what is safe to sell…only way to be sure would be to test each product…We need to know specifically what items are deemed unsafe for our children.”

How CPSIA Impacts Small Businesses 1 - 6

2009-05-14T14:01:00.000-07:00

My goal today is to watch the entire series of videos from the "How CPSIA Impacts Small Businesses" briefing today in D.C. Our hope needs to be that those on the Committee participating were actually listening, and that this gets through to them.

I started earlier today by twittering about the videos, but decided I was getting long winded, so needed to move thoughts to blog. But will try to keep them short and sweet like twitter. These are actually the tweets I posted on the first 6 you tube videos. Then will post new thoughts on more of videos.

1st You Tube, Good beginning by Mr. Altmire “...well intended but...”

Under CPSIA "Small businesses are required to conduct costly testing and use pricey tracking labels" Utility of requirements well intended

"CPSC has admitted that cost of CPSIA requirements might be crippling to small businesses" Should be enough said there!

More #CPSIA losses: "Small retailers...now saddled with countless items that they can't sell..." Need to protect our kids in way that works

Hard to hear 2nd video: 1st witness at #CPSIA Brief, Nord: Retroactive ban on lead+ has been BIG problem for retailers, resllers, and more!

Nord: Some of problems on horizon, August 14 when lower lead limits hit -- hurting especially books and bikes; & Permanent Tracking Labels.

Nord discussing some of what CPSC has done to educate folks about CPSIA, including website, guides, etc. They've been working handicapped.

3rd CPSIA video, can't read name of speaker..."Unintended Consequences" of this law...My ?: So why are they taking so long to fix it?!?

She discussing recalled toys from 2007, "prompted Congress to pass a CPSIA Act in 2008...most of lead in these...toys came from overseas..."

She's got it wrong or I have it wrong, she's talking about CPSIA affecting products for children under 12 -- I thought it was 12 and under?

"Costs of testing is going to be upwards of tens of thousands of $...Not good news for small biz..." Not good news? How about impossible?

4th CPSIA video: Chairman, asking Nord..."Your opinion, this impact on small biz, Is this an unintended consequence of law, or intent?" "No"

But my question is, does it matter whether Nord thinks this was intent of Congress? Congress made this mess - whether they intended or not

Chairman tells Nord that Congress believes law gives CPSC authority to exclude products that do clearly do not pose lead ingestion risks...

Nord, "I wish the law gave us flexibility...flexibility is needed...but law is written in very deliberate way to not give CPSC flexibility"

Chairman to Nord, "Is CPSIA placing small biz at a disadvantage to larger competitors? Is CPSC doing anything to level the playing field?"My question: How can Nord level the playing field for small biz in regards to CPSIA? CPSC has no ability to do risk assessment!

CPSIA brief videos #5 Nord explains CPSC doesn't have sufficient authority to exempt producers of textiles from testing.

Nord asked how stay of enforcement on testing requirements helped retailers/wholesalers. She explained not optimal answer, but all they had!

Nord explains that while authors of law claim CPSC has authority to rectify concerns of small biz under #CPSIA, NO examples are given for it

The more I watch of #CPSIA briefings, the more I believe Nord is on our side, and an unrecognized hero in fight against CPSIA craziness!

Video #6: Mr. Ellsworth points out it wasn't intended consequence of Congress to hamstring small & large biz w/ #CPSIA. So why delay to fix?

Mr. Ellsworth asks Nord to look at House Bill 1465 and see if it answers some of her #CPSIA concerns. But notes it still hasn't had hearing!

Nord asked what problems she's hearing from small biz: #1 = perverse effect of retroactive effect of #CPSIA on existing inventory. AGREE!

Nord points out another issue w/ #CPSIA: Gives no flexibility to CPSC to deal w/ real world situations and problems. Congress says it does.

Nord points out outlawed items that have never been linked to lead poisoning: "These things are preposterous!" And we would agree with her!

Resellers have no way of knowing whether their products contain lead or phthalates...items that don't necessarily pose a risk, but can't sell

Nord points out Resellers provide such a value to society, but retroactive part of law doesn't deal just w/manufacturing, deals with selling.

CPSC Handbook for Resallers

2009-05-08T18:18:00.000-07:00

A big deal has been made about the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)'s new Handbook for Resale Stores and Product Resellers. Apparently they came out with it recently, though I never got the email alert from the CPSC about it that I should have. I found out about it on Twitter!

I read the original handbook in February -- when they gave it to us just before the law into effect. This one isn't that different from the original one. It goes into a bit more detail about some of the "problematic" items that might come into a consignment shop or thrift store -- such as Cribs, Play Yards, Baby Walkers, Toy Chests...

But I don't sell any of those things. I sell books, and games, and other educational materials. So what new news did the CPSC have for me or others like me?

Well, before we get to that, the Introduction to the handbook should be of interest to all of us in the business of selling Children's Products: "The implementation of the CPSIA will have dramatic changes for the marketplace." Can we all say, "understatement"!?! (That sounds better than "Duh!") The problem is that all these changes are not making children safer -- which was the claimed purpose of the CPSIA in the first place.

And then they go on to give the lofty purpose of this new handbook, "to help you identify the types of products that are affected and to understand how to comply with the law, so you can keep unsafe products out of the hands of consumers." If they were really giving us any new information on CPSIA, 3 months after it's gone into effect, I would actually be unhappy. But not to fear. They have no real information for us here.

They merely state what we have been dealing with for the past 3 months: "Right now, resellers need to be able to determine what was manufactured in the past that may no longer be compliant." Exactly! While we applaud the 1 year delay in implementing the testing requirements for new items, CPSIA immediately put resellers in a bad spot. Products that were legal when they were made, legal when they were sold the first time, and legal when they were consigned before February 10, became problematic for resellers over night.

The authors of the handbook are trying to help, we'll give them credit for that. But for this reseller at least, they don't accomplish their lofty goal very well. On page 3 they tell us that resellers "cannot knowingly sell products that do not meet the requirements of the law." Implication would be that if we don't know it has lead, or phthalates, or a recall, when we sell it, we're okay. But wait, there's more. "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse." Doesn't that second statement override the first?

On page 4 they try to console us again, "If you should happen to sell or offer for sale a product in violation of the CPSIA or other law, CPSC's response will vary depending upon the circumstances...The Commission's response would also take into account the fact that you may be a small business. CPSC's goal is to help you to avoid future violations and protect your customers, not to put you out of business."

Why doesn't that comfort me? First, it's too subjective and too vague. The law says I can receive up to $100,000 fine and 5 years in jail -- for a first offense, and even as a small business. So what is the CPSC promising me? Only a $10,000 fine? Or a $50,000 fine? Or only 1 year in jail? Those may sound better to the CPSC, but any of those WOULD put us out of business, and seriously jeopardize our family.

And in case the CPSC has forgetten, because we certainly can't, the CPSC is only one of our concerns. Maybe they would only slap our hands for the first offense -- but what about the State Attorney Generals' Offices, who also have jurisdiction now? They are not bound to what the CPSC is promising. And what about civil suits? We can still be sued for violating this law, intentionally or not...No, I'm just not feeling comforted by their promising words.

And on page 6, they go back to the choices we have as Resellers under this new law, as we consider each and every used product that comes through our doors: We can test, we can not accept, we can use our best judgment about the product, or we can contact the manufacturer. (Oh, and be sure to check the recall list for each of them, while we're at it.)

I only have a couple of questions for the members of Congress and the CPSC that think these are reasonable requests: Have any of you ever been in a Thrift Store or a Consignment Store? Have any of you ever worked in one, or owned one? Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought.

First of all, let's start with the most ludicrous of the above choices: "Use your best judgment based on your knowledge of the product" I'm not even sure what to make of that statement! Will my best judgment stand up in court? I'm not a chemist...How can I possibly look at a product and be able to judge whether it has lead or phthalates? I've asked for a list of things that might be safe, and they can't provide it, so how could I possibly know? Are CDs safe? Are video tapes? Are the educational games or puzzles that just came in? I would have absolutely no way of knowing on any of those. If it's so easy, why don't they tell us?

And then there's the choice to contact the Manufacturers of these products...How much money do they think we make off each of these products, that they think we would have time to contact the Manufacturers for each and every problematic item?

And since we also can't afford testing anything that we deal with in our Consignment store, that only leaves one bad choice: Don't accept the product. So for the last 4 months, we have had to turn away countless books, toys, games, puzzles, manipulatives, and more. Not because they were unsafe, or even necessarily illegal. But we couldn't prove that they were lead free and phthalate free, so it was a risk to carry them. A risk that we couldn't afford to take. We lose, and our customers lose. And no one is better off.

With those choices, it's no wonder so many Consignment Shops that dealt primarily with Children's products have already closed their doors. Is that helping children? Or poor families? Or families on tight budgets? I don't think so...Was this one of the goals of this poorly written law, or just "an unintended consequence"?

Senate Amendment 374

2009-05-03T17:57:00.000-07:00

This amendment would be a Godsend to the Resellers of Children's Products who are being severely hurt by the retroactive aspect of CPSIA.

Senator DeMint was one of the few in Congress to vote against the initial CPSIA bill, and was one of the first to offer an amendment to fix it: S. 374: "A bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide regulatory relief to small and family-owned businesses."

This amendment is designed to help Resellers, who are being hurt especially hard by the law right now. (Manufacturers' pain will increase as the August 2009 and February 2010 deadlines get closer.)

DeMint's amendment would allow secondhand sellers (consignment shops, thrift shops, etc.) to sell items that do not meet the new CPSIA standards. (Those items have already been sold at least once -- generally legally!)

It would also bump back the upcoming deadlines at least 6 months, giving manufacturers more time to figure out how to become CPSIA compliant, and require the CPSC to issue final rules, regulations and guidelines 30 days BEFORE the CPSIA can be enforced.

One of the biggest concerns with the CPSIA right now is the penalties that companies and individuals have to be concerned about, even with an inadvertent violation. DeMint's amendment would relieve much of that concern -- by waiving any civil penalty for a first, inadvertent violation.

Kudos to the Co-Sponsors, joining DeMint on this bill: Cosponsors [as of 2009-04-18]Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK], Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID], Sen. Samuel Brownback [R-KS], Sen. Thomas Coburn [R-OK], Sen. Roger Wicker [R-MS], Sen. David Vitter [R-LA], and Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R-GA].

Now if we can just get it out of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and onto the Senate floor for discussion and a vote...

More Amendments to the CPSIA

2009-05-03T16:44:00.000-07:00

Congress seems to be able to find time to spend trillions of dollars to "stimulate the economy" but they can't seem to find time to fix the mess they've made with CPSIA; fixing it just might be one of the best stimulus ideas they could come up with right about now.

It isn't for lack of trying on the part of those who are fighting the law: There are currently at least 9 amendments to CPSIA that have been sponsored. None of them are perfect, or fix all of the problems.(Since it would require repealing the law, and starting over, to accomplish that.)

I'm planning to keep an eye on what Congress is doing (or not doing)in regards to CPSIA. The Senate amendments include 374, 389, and 609. The House amendments include 968, 1027, 1046, 1465, 1692, and 1815.

More info on each of those to follow...

2009-05-01T18:50:00.001-07:00

I briefly read the Congressional Research Service's Report on CPSIA Implementation a couple of weeks ago, but hadn't slowed down long enough to really read it and report on it. And then tonight, when I wanted to look at it again, I couldn't find it again...But Walter Olson's Overlawyerd website to the rescue. There was the link, waiting for me.

Overall, the report seems fairly neutral and accurate. The author, Bruce Mulock, gives a quick overview of the law, the history of the CPSC, and the highlights of what’s been going on since last fall in the CPSIA fight – with Congress, the CPSC, and affected Companies.

In the fourth paragraph of the Introduction he sums up the problem from our side: "Confusion is rampant among manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, and consumers about new lead limits for consumer products intended for children 12 and under. Turmoil is particularly acute among small businesses. Despite agency efforts to provide clarification, consignment shops, thrift stores, and various charitable organizations still fear incurring stiff fines for inadvertently violating the CPSIA, and retailers across the county are contemplating disposing of valuable inventory that may well pose no health risks." That about sums it up right there -- and should it really take any more than that to show the authors of this mess that they have work to do? Apparently Common Sense and Reasonableness are uncommon traits in D.C.

On page 7 of the Report he starts the section "CPSIA Implementation Plagued by Concerns and Confusion". Concerns and Confusion….Yes, CPSIA has certainly fostered no shortage of those. And then on page 8 he mentions the contradictory nature of some of what the CPSC did in January with regards to CPSIA, "On January 8, 2009, the agency issued a Guidance Intended for Resellers of Children’s Products, Thrift and Consignment Stores. This document emphasized that the Commission’s enforcement priorities focused on manufacturers, not on retail establishments which were selling or reselling consumer products…Nevertheless, the Guidance also went on to say: ‘However, resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.’”

So, while it was a nice gesture for the CPSC to say that its enforcement priorities were going to be the manufacturers, they went on to put those of us in the resell business in a very difficult position, making sure we understood that we could face civil and criminal penalties…And making it clear that we would not have to have knowledge of excessive lead content to be found guilty…A month before the law was going into effect, none of this was very comforting to most of us who would be affected by it!

And then on page 9 Mulock says, “Despite weeks of back and forth between Members of Congress and the CPSC, it is still far from clear whether the problem is with the CPSIA itself or with the manner in which the CPSC is administering it.” For those of us being harmed by the law, it really doesn’t matter! But this student of the matter says Congress made the mess, and Congress needs to stop blaming others and clean up their mess!
And in case this fact was lost on any of us, Mulock points out that the stays issued by the CPSC are all well and good, but: “The CPSC lost some of its ability to use discretion in its enforcement of the CPSIA, by virtue of the act’s having empowered state attorneys general to enforce the CPSIA. What that means with regard to the agency’s January 30, 2009 decision to stay certain testing and certification requirements is for now the chief example. The CPSC is powerless to command state attorney general to join in the stay. If a state attorney general decided to ignore the stay—and bring an action against a retailer for violating the CPSIA—the CPSC could not prevent such an outcome.” So again, the stay, like the clarification, is a nice idea, but what did it REALLY accomplish? The Attorney Generals are not bound by the stay.

Which brings us back to the position so many of us have been at for months: Good intentions do not make good laws. Children are not safer because of CPSIA. Congress must admit that they’ve blown it – and fix this law!!!

Burke and Washington Comment on Govt/CPSIA

2009-05-01T18:33:00.000-07:00

Good #CPSIA quotes:
"People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous." -- Edmund Burke

If Congress doesn't hurry up and fix CPSIA, that's going to happen more and more -- intentionally by some and inadvertently by others. Considering the CPSC's reluctance to enforce this bad law, and to follow it, in some cases -- this is becoming a nightmare for those of us who believe in "the Rule of Law".

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -- George Washington

Washington said it so well over 200 years ago. CPSIA is clearly an example of government's irresponsible action. There is no reason in it, and no eloquence. It is fire, and it is force.

Winnie the Pooh and CPSIA

2009-04-27T08:19:00.000-07:00

I was reading a cute blog about Winnie the Pooh and blogging, and was struck by a conversation between Rabbit and Pooh:

“I don’t see much sense in that,” said Rabbit. “No,” said Pooh humbly, “There isn’t. But there was going to be when I began it. It’s just that something happened to it along the way.”

As happens so many times these days, I was reminded of CPSIA when I read that. In this particular conversation, Rabbit reminds me of the citizens and companies of this country who are looking at the CPSIA law and wondering where the sense or logic in it can be hiding.

And of course, Pooh reminds me of Congress (my apologies to Pooh). Of course, they can't be quite as forthright as Pooh and actually admit that something happened along the way with a concept that may have initially made sense. (Protecting children from lead -- good idea. CPSIA -- very bad implementation of that concept.)

I don't remember the rest of this particular Pooh story, but like all Pooh stories, it would have had to be a happy ending. Those of us that are fighting the ill-conceived CPSIA can only hope that we will yet come to a happy ending to this saga!

Amendments to CPSIA

2009-04-24T18:22:00.000-07:00

I still believe that CPSIA is so bad that it should be repealed entirely, and then rewritten, dealing with ONLY the limited products it should have dealt with. Not a very long list of those: I would suggest the new law apply to toys for children 3 and under, and jewelry intended for children 5 and up. I think that about does it.

But, in the meantime, it appears that even getting this law amended will be a minor miracle. There are at least a couple of amendments languishing in committees right now. While they would still leave major problems with the law, they would fix at least some of the issues.

Senate bill 608 has a great sounding name: "Common Sense in Consumer Product Safety Act of 2009" It is "A bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to exclude secondary sales, repair services, and certain vehicles from the ban on lead in children's products, and for other purposes." Govtrack currently lists Senator Tester as the sponsor, and 2 co-sponsors.

On the House side, there's H.R. 1587: "To amend the lead prohibition provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008..." It would give an exemption to the ATV folks, but that's about it. "To amend the lead prohibition provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to provide an exemption for certain off-highway vehicles, and for other purposes." It is sponsored by Representative Rehberg, and currently has 38 co-sponsors listed.

At some point, surely this craziness will come to an end...Preferably before the next stage gets here in August...

Random Quotes and Their CPSIA "Connection"

2009-04-13T06:09:00.000-07:00

I was reading quotes someone had collected for a homeschooling project, and I found numerous ones that could be tied to CPSIA.

"Nobody is bored when he is trying to make something that is beautiful, or to discover something that is true." Playwrite William Inge Unfortunately many crafters will lose the ability to make something beautiful with an unfixed CPSIA!

"The highest reward for a person's toil is not what they get for it, but what they become by it." Author John Ruskin Again, so true of those who make wonderful, one-of-a-kind items for children, that Congress has outlawed in their "infinite wisdom".

"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." President Theodore Roosevelt Much of what has suddenly become outlawed falls in this category as well.

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." Author Mark Twain And with CPSIA, there will be a lot less good books to read!

And my two favorites:

"It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem." Author G.K. Chesterton In this case, Congress and CPSIA is the problem (not the CPSC who are just trying to do their job.) And they refuse to admit that, so they refuse to apply the proper solutions (amendments would be a good start -- though I still vote for repealing the entire law!).

"Cowardice asks - Is it safe? Expediency asks - Is it politic? Vanity asks - Is it popular? But conscience asks - Is it right?" Civil Rights Worker Martin Luther King, Jr. I think MLK's statement sums it up the best! Congress can't get past the "safe" and the political to do what's right!

"Protecting the American Consumers" YouTube

2009-04-11T14:56:00.000-07:00

This video from August 2008 is nothing more than a celebration of the short-sightedness of Congress with CPSIA.

The first speaker is Majority Leader Harry Reid who speaks proudly of the "priority of restoring credibility and accountability to Washington" (Oh there, we go, the publicity angle of CPSIA.) He talks of their ability to "celebrate CPSIA" (As opposed to the Consumers and Companies who are primarily cursing CPSIA now.)

Then Nancy Pelosi comes up to talk of the "Year of the Recalls", and proudly brags of "removing those products and more importantly preventing those products from getting to those shelves in the first place". (Never mind that 99.9% of the products they are removing are perfectly safe!)

Then the mother from Oregon comes up to thank Congress, and explain that CPSIA makes "Parents like me breathe easier." (I'm glad she's breathing easier -- this parent is not! Nor are most of the parents I know.)

And Reid comes back to tell us that "Our government can work for people." (Can anyone say Amen? No, I didn't think so.)

And let's not forget Representative DeLaury who practically screams at us, "We need to remain vigilant. We need to ensure that our families and our children are protected from harmful products." (And safe ones too...Never mind that that's parents' jobs!)

And Reid comes back to remind us that this law "applies to all consumer products" and is "good legislation". (I'm glad he thinks so, most of us would disagree.)

Nancy Pelosi CPSIA YouTube

2009-04-11T13:22:00.001-07:00

I finally had a chance to watch one of the YouTube CPSIA videos. I started with one showing Speaker Nancy Pelosi talking to Congress, last July, just before the bill was signed into law.

I realize that I go into this already biased, having now fought CPSIA for more than 3 months (my hat is off to those who have been in the fight for even longer than that!).

Nancy wants to make sure that we realize that they are "A Congress for America's Children" (I lost track of how many times she said that.) I wonder how many of America's children would not agree with that assessment right about now? She also made sure to point out that "This bill is long overdue" (Why exactly is it long overdue? She didn't really answer that question, we just have to believe that it is.)

The bill has the "support of Community Groups that care about children". (So, let's see, by inference, those of us who are fighting CPSIA do not care about children...Sorry, Nancy, I have to strongly disagree with you on that!)

"...do something for America's children." (Why? Because it sounds good? Because it makes good publicity? Yes, I am beginning to agree with the other bloggers who make that point! This is not about 'doing good'...It is about 'sounding good'.)

"We have to depend on the Government to protect our children." (I had to rewind to make sure I heard that part correctly...No, I'm sorry, Nancy, I don't think that's the role of government. In fact, looking through my pocket Constitution I can't find that in the job description of government anywhere. Please let parents do their jobs, and go back to doing yours...The first Article of the Constitution, Section 8, has a really nice explanation of what that is, in case you've forgotten.)

Nancy sounds very distressed when she gets to her point about 45 million toys that were recalled the year before -- before they had written CPSIA we might add. Twice she asks, "What is a parent to do?" And of course, she has the answer -- more legislation!

"Dangerous toys should be an oxymoron." (I do agree with that, Nancy. But how many children were injured or killed from those 45 million "dangerous toys" that were recalled? None that I've been able to determine...And unfortunately, CPSIA deals with so much more than those "dangerous toys"...since it was written to include ALL Children's Products! Let's go back to assessing actual risk -- and write a law that deals with those things that actually pose dangers to our children -- instead of removing perfectly safe items from their lives!)

Youtube Videos about CPSIA

2009-04-11T10:24:00.000-07:00

Someone has put together a playlist of CPSIA related you tube videos. I look forward to (sort of) getting to watch some of them.

From the Mainstream Media we get Headlines such as:

2009-04-10T11:40:00.000-07:00

It comes complete with this disturbing quote from the Center for Environmental Health Director "If a child is exposed to lead it can permanently effect development of the brain. Lead exposure in adults is attached to increased risk of heart attack, stroke and memory problems."

If we were talking about chew toys, I would be concerned, but I don’t know any little girls old enough to play with a purse that are chewing on them.

* * * *

Though some get it, especially at the local levels:

Stores caught in wake of new lead law

This article author certainly sees the impact of CPSIA on Resellers, and those who shop at those stores:

“But now, the items that once made up a quarter of revenue at Top Drawer Resale Clothier in Traverse City are tucked out of view, held back by a thin rope and a handwritten sign. ‘Sorry, these items are not for sale.’…

Since the law took effect, some area thrift stores like Top Drawer stopped taking any children's items. Others have developed more stringent practices, in some cases reducing the amount of items taken to the floor.”

* * * *

And this op-ed piece dealing with numerous “troublesome chemicals”:

Good intentions gone astray

I especially like her ending, which applies to CPSIA as well as the other “chemical safety bills” she mentions:

“It's fine to be out in front - when necessary. And it is absolutely right to provide consumers, especially children, with strict protections - but not when that claim of protection is without basis and contradicts the risk-based, scientific study that is the traditional foundation for law and safety standards in the United States. So as the House Consumer Protection Committee considers ‘the chemical bills,’ its members should amend the proposals to give sound science priority over emotion, and to recognize that existing federal laws have already set the consumer protection standard for the nation - including Oregon.” Amen! Let’s hear it for science over emotion! And for “risk-based scientific study”.

More Attention Being Paid in Blogs to CPSIA than by Congress

2009-04-10T10:40:00.000-07:00

More and more of us get the feeling that "Congress is fiddling, while our industries are burning."

Congress continues to refuse to fix the CPSIA mess they created....Mainstream media still pretty much ignores the issue...But bloggers will get the word out there, one blog entry at a time.

Only Congress could ruin the kids motorcycle business and endanger children at the same time: Hugh points out: "90% of the youth fatalities and injuries on motorcycles occur when kids ride adult vehicles." Which is going to happen more and more because of CPSIA.

Of course, not all the blogs out there understand how bad CPSIA is, especially if they are connected to Consumer Union or U.S. PIRG. Here's another one that makes us out to be the bad guys. (For some reason, those blogs always seem to be short facts...but maybe that's just me.)

H.R. 1692 "To Amend the CPSIA to Exempt Ordinary Books..."

2009-04-09T19:36:00.000-07:00

It is still amazing to me that Congress passed CPSIA in the first place. But it is even more amazing that they refuse to fix the mess they have created. Since it doesn't appear that we will get them to repeal the entire law any time soon, it looks like the best we can hope for is small fixes -- in some cases, very small fixes.

Such is the case with H.R. 1692...It will not make major improvements, but it will help some. Congressman Fortenberry's amendment admits that Congress did not intend CPSIA to apply to ordinary books (defined as those printed using conventional methods and intended to be read, not played with). It also points out that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that books pose minimal risk.

As has been the pattern with this law, this amendment does not answer all the questions it will bring up. My first question is, which books does it apply to? Those that are printed from this point forward? Those that were printed after 1985? Or all books?

As a reseller, an educator, and a mother, those are very important questions.

It is really a shame that we have to applaud efforts such as HR1692 in our push to get this law fixed. But, for now, at least, it seems the best we are going to be able to do....Please, Congress, pass this amendment, and any others that will do ANYTHING to fix this disaster!

2009-04-09T12:37:00.000-07:00

I finally had a chance to get addresses together to mail my old picture books to.

I'm starting with the CPSC, a couple of key Congressmen and most of the Senators who voted against DeMint's amendment. These should go in the mail tomorrow:

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814

Congressman Waxman
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Senator Daniel Akaka
141 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator Max Baucus
511 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator Evan Bayh
131 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Michael Bennet
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Jeff Bingaman
703 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator Sherrod Brown
713 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Roland Burris
523 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Maria Cantwell
511 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Benjamin Cardin
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Thomas Carper
513 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Robert Casey
383 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator Susan Collins
413 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Kent Conrad
530 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator John Cornyn
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Christopher Dodd
448 Russell Building
Washington D.C., 20510

Senator Byron Dorgan
322 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Richard Durbin
309 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Russell Feingold
506 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Dianne Feinstein
331 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
1478 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Judd Gregg
201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Daniel Inouyye
722 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Mike Johanns
404 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Tim Johnson
136 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Edward Kaufman
G11 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

Senator John Kerry
218 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Herb Kohl
330 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Mary Landrieu
328 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Frank Lautenberg
324 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Joseph Lieberman
706 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator John McCain
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Harry Reid
522 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator John D Rockefeller, IV
531 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

H.R. 1815 "Consumer Product Safety Solutions Act"

2009-04-08T19:53:00.000-07:00

Another attempt at fixing CPSIA, this one coming out of the House.

Here is my first analayis of it, that I also posted on amendthecpsia.com

I am certainly anxious to hear what others have to say about this amendment. I have only had time to give it a brief, "once over". I need to go over it again, with the original law next to it, but no time for that tonight.

I like the title: "This Act may be cited as the 'Consumer Product Safety Solutions Act of 2009'" -- and I definitely believe it will solve some of the problems with CPSIA -- but I think there will still be many problems remaining.

For instance, on page 2, it proposes making the February 9, 2009 ppm requirement only apply to items manufactured after that date -- UNTIL 2010! And it does the same thing with the lower ppm requirement -- putting it into effect 2 years after the law was enacted, for items manufactured after that date, but then applying it to all children's products.

I wear many hats in my life right now -- but in my role as a reseller, this makes me want to scream! All it is doing is postponing the very real pain of having no idea what the ppm lead content is of the countless used items we receive. This would give me some additional time, until February 2010 to be able to sell some of those items -- but the longer this "fix" takes, the less that impresses me. And every item of unknown chemistry that were to come into my shop between now and February would do so with the distinct possibility that it would then become illegal for me in less than a year. This is not the type of help resellers need. We need exemption, period.

These limits should only be applied into the future -- not retroactively like they are currently, or like this bill would propose.

I do see more flexibility being given to the CPSC as well -- but I don't think it's going to be adequate, not with these few modifications.

And did I miss it, or are there no changes to:
1) the outrageous age limits of the current law?
2) no protection for crafters or others who make one of a kind items?
3) no change in the outrageous fines under CPSIA?

Personally, I liked DeMint's amendment better -- and see this one as only putting a small bandage on a gushing wound!

Shakespeare and CPSIA

2009-04-08T14:20:00.001-07:00

We can't get away from CPSIA anywhere, not even in Shakespeare class.

Last week, we found this when reading Love's Labour's Lost: “The way is but short; away!” “As swift as lead, sir” “…Is not lead a metal heavy, dull, and slow?...I say, lead is slow.”

And today, there was that pesky CPSIA lurking in Love's Labour's Lost again:
“Sir, he hath never fed of the dainties that are bred in a book; he hath not eat paper."

The Myth of Good Intentions

2009-04-07T17:19:00.000-07:00

DownsizeDC runs another great article on Washington politics and politicians being out of control: This one on "The Myth of Good Intentions" of CPSIA. The author makes a good point, "... I think these assumptions about 'good intentions' are a little naive . . .Their motive was good publicity, not good intentions."

I have been watching the CPSIA mess for almost 3 months now, and I am certainly beginning to believe that this law did not ever have good intentions. While it might be plausible (though not encouraging) to think that over 500 Congressmen/women and Senators managed to not read the bill before they voted for it last summer, and that they might have gotten through last fall without knowing how bad this law really was....But it is very unlikely that by two months into this mess that they could be unaware of the damages they are doing now.

So, if this isn't about the good intentions of protecting our children...then what is it about? It really isn't too far fetched to think that all Congress was/is thinking of with CPSIA is the good publicity they got from "protecting our children".... And they certainly aren't getting much BAD publicity as a result of all the damage they are doing.

Senate Amendment 964 Fails April 2

2009-04-07T14:38:00.000-07:00

One of first amendments to CPSIA to finally get voted on failed:

S.AMDT.964
Amends: S.CON.RES.13
Sponsor: Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] (submitted 4/2/2009) (proposed 4/2/2009)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect small and home businesses from the burdensome and impractical requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

4/2/2009:

Amendment SA 964 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 39 - 58. Record Vote Number: 151.

COSPONSORS(5):

Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] - 4/2/2009
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 4/2/2009
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - 4/2/2009
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 4/2/2009
Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 4/2/2009

Old Library Books to Washington, D.C.

2009-04-07T12:23:00.000-07:00

I purchased 38 old children's books at a library book sale. I am sending them to Washington, D.C. to the staff at CPSC, several Senators, and several members of Congress who think that old books are not still around and/or are not still important. They will be accompanied by the following letter:

To Whom It May Concern In Washington, D.C.

It is a shame that CPSIA has been allowed to continue causing problems for so long already. It is regrettable that Congress continues to have so little concern for the pain they are causing both Consumers and Companies. That pain is being felt by those in so many industries: ATV/bicycles, crafters, clothing, toys, books, and so much more.

And all of this over a fallacy, the fallacy that the presence of lead is a danger. No, the CDC has clearly shown the ingestion of lead is dangerous. And children are not ingesting the above mentioned products.

Contrary to what many of you are claiming, this law does not protect children! It is hurting their ability to have inexpensive, pre-owned clothes, books, and more! And soon it will limit their ability to purchase many of those things new as well.

I am enclosing an old children’s book I purchased from a library book sale. Contrary to the popular opinion of some in D.C., this book is not dangerous. But it is now illegal for me to sell this book, because I cannot prove it is effectively lead free. And it is, or soon will be, illegal for the library to even loan out a book such as this. How do decisions like this get made? Can you really think it is in the best interest of children to deprive them of books such as this?

I look forward to the day when enough members of Congress can admit that this law is flawed, and that they can do the proper thing and repeal it. Barring that, some serious amending would be a step in the right direction!

Sincerely yours, a concerned mother and businesswoman,

National School Supply & Equipment Association

2009-04-07T11:21:00.000-07:00

CPSIA is being fought on many different levels, and yet Congress still is not getting it!

This page from the National School Supply & Equipment Association does a great job, in one place, of covering the law, the problems with it, the Rally, letters that have been sent in more. I would say this is one of the best "all in one" places I've seen with coverage of CPSIA!

Of course most of what they are saying is what so many of us have been saying for so long. I hadn't read their position paper on CPSIA or their letter to Congressman Dingell before. It was good to see CPSIA problems presented from the school standpoint.

Is CPSIA Unconstitutional?

2009-04-03T18:30:00.000-07:00

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I still think CPSIA is unconstitutional...What could we argue?

How about?
1st amendment -- "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
(Congress is certainly not allowing this under the CPSIA disaster.)
5th amendment -- "No person shall be...deprived of...property without due process of law."
(I think we would all agree that manufacturers, retailers, and resellers have all been deprived of property without due process of law.)
8th amendment -- "Excess bail shall no be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
(Let's see...Up to $100,000 fine, and 5 years in jail -- for selling a used item I didn't know had lead in it...Sounds excessive and cruel and unusual to me!)
10th amendment -- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
(I think this has to be one of my all time favorite "forgotten amendments". I don't see Article 1, Section 8 giving Congress enough power to pass CPSIA -- surely "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..." doesn't go this far?)

Senator Durbin on CPSIA in the Illinois Channel

2009-04-03T07:40:00.000-07:00

I was very unhappy when I read Senator Durbin's comments about CPSIA in the Illinois Channel blog: Durbin: CPSIA Most Important Consumer Legislation in More than 30 years.

This erroneus claims particularly bothered me: “In the last few years, dozens of children were killed and thousands more injured because of dangerous toys on our store shelves. Recall after recall had many in Congress wondering if America’s consumer watchdog agency had lost its bite.”

I quickly answered back: "Where do these statistics come from? Dozens of children have NOT been killed by lead laden or phthalate laden products! And thousands have not been injured by them. This law is an outrage, and Senator Durbin and the Illinois Channel are adding to the lies that helped get it passed in the first place."

I was pleasantly surprised when my comments were actually posted, and then to read the comment that followed mine. I was even more impressed by the email I got from someone connected to the Illinois Channel blog explaining that they were merely passing on Durbin's positions, not reporting them as the truth. The fact that comments refuting them were posted is certainly a good indication of that claim.

I guess we can see that there is still some balanced reporting out there on the subject of CPSIA, as limited as it may be.

Consumer Reports Blog: Businesses Rally Against CPSIA

2009-04-02T13:37:00.000-07:00

Today's blog in the Consumer Reports blasts yesterday's rally: Businesses Rally Against CPSIA.

As happens so many times it is full of half-truths and misleading comments. I wrote the following response to it today (time will tell whether they will post it):

I do not have time to point out all of the issues with the above report right now. But for now, I would like to point out the fallacies in this law, and in this report.

1) The presence of lead is not dangerous. The ingestion of lead is dangerous. The CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) has been leading and winning the battle on lead poisoning for almost 20 years. They point out that the biggest threat of lead poisoning is from old lead-based paint, primarily in older homes.

2) The absence of lead in children's products does not make them inherently safer. Bicycles, ATVs, and many more rely on lead for its properties. There is no scientific basis to show that these children's products will be safer without lead.

3) The recall of toys and cribs in the recent past shows that the current laws, prior to CPSIA, were working. Dangerous items were being discovered, and removed from the market place.

4) The recalls of the above items were seldom because of lead.

5) The above recalls were seldom, if ever, done on books, clothes, etc. Those items have been lumped together in the "all children's products" being effected by this law. This is the fault of Congress, not the leadership at the CPSC.

6) Businesses are not rallying against CPSIA because of a lack of concern for children. Many of us in these businesses are parents, and it is our concern for children, ours and others, that makes us fight this dreadful legislation.

Govt Club Students React to CPSIA Rally Today

2009-04-01T19:11:00.001-07:00

I don’t chew on things! I can’t even fit the books I read in my mouth.
Things I don’t like about CPS“I”A:
1. I can barely find shoes and clothes because the prices have gone up
2. My mom had to get rid of her books.
3. I am 10 and it says 13 and up, and 12 and under.
4. I just don’t like it.
Things I like about CPS “I”A
1. …I guess nothing!
Sonia, age 10
****
This law is stupid. I take this as an insult. Why to age 12? Children stop “eating” books at 1 ½! It is insulting to parents too! You have to physically eat lead to get lead poisoning! Are you really trying to make new jobs? No! Millions of people will lose their jobs after this bill.
Hardly anybody gets lead poisoning in America, so re-make this bill!
People are getting injured due to the fact that kids have to get too big bikes and such!
Aaron, age 12
****
The law is stupid ‘cause all of the lead is coming from China. There’s only 4 factories in the US that can test for lead, and when those 4 factories fill up then all of the things will have to be sent back to China where all the lead problems are coming from in the first place.
The CPSIA was meant to protect children, but I think it’s doing exactly the opposite because the law is making it illegal for kids to get ATVs that are the right size. So the kids are having to ride ATVs and bikes that are adult sized – and too big for them, thus raising the injury level.
Elijah, age 12
****
Parents should be able to make their own choices without the government in their way. But now Congress has passed a law that tells what you can and cannot buy. How dumb is that? Another thing is that they have to test the same shirt in different sizes. It’s the same material….It insults parents and kids.
Now to the penalties. These are soooo unconstitutional. A fine of $100,000. That’s outrageous and that’s not all. Five years in jail. Five years. Both of these for selling one item. One item with lead in it. CPSIA hurts kids and that’s the truth.
Student, age 13
****
Old books that are out of print are going to completely vanish, be eliminated. And twelve and younger? My two-year-old cousin doesn’t chew on things, let alone a twelve year old! Businesses are going to have to stop, people are going to be laid off, and we are already having issues with jobs! Some people can’t afford to test objects for lead, so what are they supposed to do? This bill should be repealed, there are no amounts of amendments that could fix this bill.
Katie, age 13
****
Who is going to eat a book anyway? In order to ingest lead, you would have to eat the whole book. And even then, it would probably not have enough lead in it to do anything.
They are outlawing children’s ATVs. That means that the truly devoted ATVers would ride ADULT ATVs. Which is more threatening, lead or oversized ATV’s that younger kids could easily wreck?
The law is unconstitutional. The government has no rights to not allow us to sell children’s products. It isn’t drugs. It isn’t illegal stuff.
There are a total of two cases of lead related deaths in recent years. Neither of which were due to books, toys, ATVs or car engines. They were from jewelry, from China.
Jacob, age 13
****
12 year olds do not eat random toys…testing for every color, product and size for lead is excessive and unneeded…Don’t take away One Fish Two Fish.
Student, age 14
****
Many people will lose money and jobs from this law, because where would they put all their old toys and books? They will have to throw them all away because they can’t sell them.
If you touch something with lead in it you will not die. And you will have to ingest a lot of it!
Student, age 14
****
This law makes it impossible for people who make and sell crafts to, or intended for, small children, to continue selling their products. These handmade products, which are created individually, now must be tested before they can be lawfully sold. Not only are the tests required impossibly expensive for these people to pay for, but they destroy the product in the process. How can these products be certified if they cannot afford testing, and the product ends up destroyed, anyway.
Also, lead poisoning occurs when lead is ingested. Simply touching something with lead in it does not put a person at risk. Why, then, are products such as books, bikes, and even clothes suddenly dangerous? Very few children that I am aware of, especially of the ages for which these products are intended, are chewing on their books and toys!
Kay, age 14
****
The cost and frequency of testing the law requires is outrageous. And the penalty is too costly.
Student, age 15
****
Books – everyone reads, even little kids. It helps them learn. Why would you want to keep them from learning? More importantly, why would you want to take away Dr. Seuss?
Bicycles – they’re made to have fun. A little kids isn’t going to eat it. Give them some credit, they’re smarter than you think.
Companies are going to have to cut back on their workers and during this time we need to keep as many jobs as we can. We can’t get through this without them.
Monica, age 15
****
This enrages me and I’m not even going to be directly affected by this. The rally is a good way to take the war to the enemy, which in our case is Congress. The word that kills us her is “all”. And all will be affected by this in one way or another.
Joel, age 16
****
Its inadvertent consequences hurt businesses, the economy, and children.
It completely takes the parents’ ability to choose toys for their children out of consideration.
Washington is incompetent!
Steven, age 17
****
I am offended that Congress feels we the people can’t make decisions for ourselves. By passing CPSIA, politicians have taken away parents rights to decide what products are appropriate for their children.
This law is also insulting to the children that it claims to protect. No 12-year-old has ever died because there was lead in their library books. Though the original intent may have been good, Congress took it too far. This bill goes beyond children’s protection. All it does is take away their freedom to play.
Student, age 17

Amend CPSIA Rally April 1 Video

2009-04-01T06:37:00.000-07:00

Video from the April 1 Rally in Washington, D.C. is now available at http://amendthecpsia.com/

Great paper from Dr Barbara Beck, one of the scientists that spoke at the Rally. She explains clearly that what we need is something that is risk-based, which CPSIA clearly isn't!

CPSIA and the Proverbs 31 Woman

2009-03-31T20:44:00.001-07:00

"She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands...She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night...she stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reached forth her hands to the needy...Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.". Prov 31:13,18,20,31

Congress and the CPSIA seem to have different ideas for us.

Great NPR article on CPSIA & Phthalates

2009-03-31T20:08:00.000-07:00

Public Concern, Not Science, Prompts Plastics Ban.
NPR's article/audio is right on on the dangers, or lack there of, of phthalates!.
"The frightening allegations helped pass the law banning phthalates. But Wind says she stands by the studies done by government researchers. 'I know that we did really good science,' she says. 'And sometimes people don't listen to the good science.'"

No, in the case of CPSIA, Congress is not listening to scientists, to the people, to consumers, to businesses, to reason...One might wonder what they are listening to?!?

Consumer Union

2009-03-31T14:23:00.000-07:00

The Consumer Union continues to write in support of CPSIA:
Booksellers find CPSIA implementation solutions

I commented on their article (whether they will show the comment or not remains to be seen!):
"So are you saying that because of one 1947 book that tested over the limit every book printed before 1986 is a danger to our children's health and should therefore be banned!? This law is based on a fallacy -- that the very presence of lead is a danger to our children's health. No, the ingestion of lead is dangerous. And children are not chewing on their books, their clothes, their bicycles, or their ATV's.

The problems with CPSIA are not in the CPSC leadership, they are in the law. Congress wrote and voted for a very bad law, and now refuses to fix their mess. Please put pressure on them to take care of the real problems that exist, not made up ones."

Lincoln and CPSIA

2009-03-30T20:36:00.000-07:00

I was searching for a tie between Lincoln and CPSIA, since I'm teaching about Abe tomorrow, and can't seem to get CPSIA off my mind for some reason.

With some help from a fellow tweeter, I found the link in another blog tonight: "Despite the trying times that our country had just experienced, Lincoln doesn't talk about reforming America or 'changing' it into something new. No. He talks about a rebirth of FREEDOM and a hope that a government of the people, by the people, for the people would not perish. He spoke about the lives that were lost on both sides and honored them." Very well-spoken. We need to get back to those famous words he spoke in the Gettysburg Address!

Congressman Dingell's Letter/My Responses to It

2009-03-30T17:17:00.001-07:00

When Congressman Dingell sent his letter to the CPSC asking them 10 very pointed questions, I had high hopes that we might be moving in the right direction. But so many times, it seems like we are still standing still. Before long there was a movement to send email responses to Congressman Dingell. I sent mine along to be included, but I had actually already sent him my responses to his questions -- I had written up two 1 page letters, and faxed them to him. (I couldn't find an email address on his website, but the fax number was there...)

My first fax to him:

6 March 2009

Congressman Dingell,

Those of us in the business of making or selling children’s products do not want to endanger children. But, as a mother and a businesswoman who has already been impacted by the CPSIA law, I can’t help but think that Congress is going about this lead and phthalate issue all wrong!

Shouldn’t the proper procedure when enacting a law be to find what’s dangerous and then write a law that prohibits or limits those things? In this country, don’t we still have the premise of “innocent until proven guilty”? But CPSIA has turned all of that on its head. Now products are guilty until proven innocent.

It appears that no one took the time to determine which children’s products had been a safety issue before writing this law. So now, as a result, thousands of children’s products are being disposed of across the country – products that are primarily safe! And if the law continues as written, thousands more children’s products will cease to be made between now and the testing and certification requirements deadline of February 2010.

As a mother, I do want the products I purchase for my children to be safe. But I also understand parental responsibility. Young children have a tendency to put things in their mouths. So we keep things away from them that would not be safe for them to chew on – whether it be electric cords, medications, or their older sibling’s bicycle tires. But by time children reach 2 or 3 years of age, mouthing things has ceased to be a problem.

So, yes, there are items that should be lead free and phthalate free – those would be the toys we are purchasing for our young children, ages 3 and younger. As parents we should not be expecting that everything else in the world is safe for them to chew on.

Why was CPSIA written to include “all children’s products”? My two year old is just as likely to chew on the family furniture as her own bed…Or just as unlikely, as the case really is. And why was the age set at 12 and under? 12 years olds do not need to be protected for lead containing items, and neither do 5 year olds for that matter. Lead must be ingested to be a health problem. So let’s legislate those items that are most likely to be “ingested” – again, toys intended for children 3 and under.

I hope your committee will address the problems arising from CPSIA sooner rather than later. Parts of the law have already gone into effect and are causing economic issues across this country.

Sincerely,
Catherine Jaime

*****

My 2nd fax:

Congressman Dingell,

You asked the CPSC this week for answers to a number of questions. As a mother and businesswoman impacted by the CPSIA law, would you also be interested in my answers to some of those?

You asked:

2) …to what extent are the deadlines in the Act practicable for CPSC and industry to meet…

The deadlines are not practicable for industries to meet, particularly smaller ones. While the testing requirements were postponed until February 2010 (and we do applaud that move), the new limits of the law still went into effect last month. So, manufacturers, where presumably the safety of products could be determined, were given 12 additional months to comply with the testing and certification requirements. But retailers and resellers were not given extra time. So in many cases we have lost inventory that overnight became illegal to sell. Inventory that in most cases has never been proven to be a safety issue to anyone!

3) Does CPSC have quantitative data concerning any negative impact of the Act?

It is highly unlikely that CPSC has that data – but those of us who have been impacted certainly do. My small business has already lost $4,000 in inventory because of CPSIA (books and other educational materials that we could no longer safely sell). And I know of many others that lost much more.

4) Does CPSC have any suggestion for how to mitigate any such economic impact…

Why don’t we fix the law so that resellers are off the hook, and so that only those items which are truly dangerous are regulated…Such as toys for very small children, and cheap jewelry.

5)…About the impact of the Act on the availability of second-hand products for children, especially clothing?

Again, I’m not sure how CPSC would know that. Why don’t you ask the parents and the resellers? Several consignment shops in our area have closed completely. Most others are seriously limiting the children’s products they carry. Our used children’s items have been limited to books – we have eliminated almost all hands-on items, games, manipulatives, CDs etc. We have no way to know if they are safe (without the testing that we’re “not required” to do?!?)

6) Does CPSC believe that the age limit…is appropriate? If not, what should the age limit be?

Since lead must be ingested to become a problem, the only real issues are with children who still put things in their mouths, and the items they are most likely to put there – so if the law covered toys for children 3 and under, you would take care of the real risks, and not put so many people out of business, or at risk financially.

9)…Test results for finished “ordinary books”…

Ordinary books should be exempted from the law altogether; new and old books for all ages. Ordinary books have never been a health issue.

But my question at this point is: Shouldn’t these questions have been asked and answered long before February 10? Portions of this law have already gone into effect. Our businesses have already been penalized by this law and now you are trying to figure these things out?!?

Sincerely,

Catherine Jaime

The Story Behind Rick's Struggle against CPSIA

2009-03-30T15:08:00.000-07:00

Some of us are such newbies in the fight against CPSIA -- I've only known about it since January 8, 2009 (and been fighting it almost every day since!) But Rick Woldenberg, of Learning Resources, Inc. has been fighting it for much longer. He was one of the first to see the dangers of the law, and has been trying to get Congress to listen to reason for a long time now. This article does a great job chronicling that struggle. Since Congress kept uninviting him, Rick was one of those to put together the Amend CPSIA Rally in D.C. this week.

Local News Coverage Still Beats National News

2009-03-29T05:00:00.000-07:00

The national news folks -- TV, radio, etc. are missing the mark on covering CPSIA. But various local media around the country are covering it, little by little:

Does Lead Law Go Too Far? This New York article covers it well: "What do second-hand children’s clothes, kids’ dirt bikes and library books have in common? They’re all lumped together in a bill banning the sale of products that might contain trace amounts of lead."

Toxic Toys: Toy Owners Grapple with New Lead Law
In Kauai, as elsewhere, the troubles have only just begun: "Local resale business owners were surprised to learn about new federal regulations on lead-tainted products. Strict regulations are difficult and costly to enforce, according to Alison Pa, program co-director of the Ho’omana Thrift Store in Wailua. Ho’omana is a nonprofit local business with three employees and a small volunteer work force."

Also stumbled upon another blogger's view of CPSIA/upcoming tea parties, etc. If the mainstream media won't get the word out on the effects of CPSIA and other similiar legislation, we will do it for them!

As so many of us have been saying for so long, CPSIA Hurts kids, it doesn't help them!

Amed CPSIA Rally Available On-line April 1

2009-03-27T05:56:00.000-07:00

Democracy in Action - An Interactive Civics Lesson for your Students

Countless numbers of us have been petitioning Congress for the last 2 months to get them to repeal CPSIA, or at least amend this far-reaching law. Numerous hearings have been scheduled, and canceled, between those who are struggling under the weight of this law and those in Congress who refuse to budge. Finally, out of frustration, many of those in the "this law has to be fixed" groups have organized their own hearings:

This Wednesday, April 1, from 10 to 11:30 a.m. (eastern time) there is an "Amend the CPSIA" Rally in Washington, D.C. Citizens from all over the country will be gathering to address this issue. For those of us who are unfortunately unable to attend, they will have it available on streaming video on the website: www.amendthecpsia.com. We plan to watch it at CLC as part of our Government Club. And of course, you can watch it in your home, as your own Interactive Civics Lesson. There will even be a live online chat as part of the event. And they would love to hear your students' reactions afterward; you may send those to: webcontent@amendthecpsia.com.

My First Letter to the Editor about CPSIA

2009-03-23T18:03:00.000-07:00

I sent this letter to the editor of our local newspaper on February 10. It was never printed:

With today being the next deadline for the wide-sweeping Consumer Product Safety "Improvement" Act (CPSIA), I am baffled at the lack of coverage. Where is the outrage over this act -- morally and economically? Why is Congress passing a stimulus act – at the same time it is doing so much to harm the economy – small businesses in particular?

I am a small business owner who is hoping to survive the economic onslaught already caused by this bill -- and this portion just went into effect! To put this in perspective: Our average monthly sales are approximately $5,000. This weekend we had to dispose of over $4,000 worth of inventory. In one weekend, it is gone. The sad thing is, we're not even sure we have removed everything. And if we haven't, we could still be in violation of the law....We're primarily a children's bookstore, with over 3,000 square feet, and in the end we were given one business day to find and remove all of the books that had just become illegal to sell.

Why? Because Congress and the CPSC have decided that it is all of a sudden dangerous for our children to read books that were printed before 1985…books that might have small amounts of lead in the ink in their pages. The adults of today grew up reading those same books with no ill effects, but somehow our children and grandchildren might suffer if some of their books were printed before 1985.

Catherine M. Jaime

My Second Letter to Senators -- 5 February

2009-03-23T18:01:00.000-07:00

As CPSIA was about to go into effect, Congress was busy trying to pass the Stimulus Bill. I sent this letter to my Senators about both issues:

Dear Senator
Please continue the fight against the current Stimulus Bill. Adding a trillion dollars to our national debt will not stimulate the economy.

The economy needs to recover through support of small businesses, not this type of pork spending.

Please help small businesses, large businesses, and the economy in general by supporting Senator DeMint's CPSIA replacement.

Thank you for your work in these areas.
Sincerely,
Catherine Jaime
A small business owner in northern Alabama

My First Letter to My Senators -- 16 January

2009-03-23T17:57:00.000-07:00

When we first learned of the law, we sent this letter to both our senators:

Dear Senator
I own a small store in Madison that serves the local homeschool community with new educational materials, used educational materials, and much more. In the current economy, we were already struggling to keep our business alive. And then, recently, we became aware of the CPSIA Legislation. At that point we had 1 month in which to figure it out, and figure out how to comply with it. We have read the legislation, we have read the FAQ on their website, and their response to the publishing industry’s questions about excluding books. The more we read, the more concerned we become.
We are hoping that you will be able to help us through this legislative maze.
In the first week of dealing with this we have come up with the following questions.

There will probably be more:
1. Will the lead testing/certification rules apply to our current inventory? If so, what are we supposed to do with anything that we can’t certify? Much of our inventory was bought before this law was even written.

2. Is it safe for us to sell our used books under the current clarification for resellers? The clarification says we don’t have to test, but that we can still be found liable for breaking the law.

3. We carry baby slings that have been hand made by a local mother. She will not be able to certify that they are lead-free. Does that mean we can no longer sell them? (In fact, that she won’t be able to sell them either?)

4. Are we correct in determining that items that cannot be certified cannot even be given away after February 10th?

5. As a self-publisher of a number of books, am I right in figuring out that anything I write for children under 13, will no longer be able to be self-published? Again, I do not have the means to certify that these books are lead-free.

6. Maybe this question should have been first: Exactly what determines that something is a “children’s product” under this law? For instance, which books that I carry will be covered by these requirements, and which will not? How am I supposed to determine this?

I may be reached at CLC at cmmjaime@alum.mit.edu or 256-325-3305 or fax: 256-325-4405.
Thank you for your timely assistance with this problem. We realize that you have many pressing issues to deal with in Congress,, but this has become one of the most pressing for us.

Sincerely
Catherine Jaime
Creative Learning Connection
8006 Old Madison Pike, 11-A
Madison, AL 35758

Protect Children From Congress

2009-03-23T08:54:00.000-07:00

Protect Children From Congress

Congress has entangled the entire U.S. economy in a web of back-breaking regulation because of an isolated problem with lead contamination in Chinese products. The "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act" could make criminals out of thrift store managers, librarians, and craft hobbyists. It will bankrupt many small businesses and grant increased market share to big firms, some of whom were responsible for the contaminated Chinese products. This new law will harm the economy, hurt low-income families, and increase the cost of raising a child. The risk of lead poisoning is already almost non-existent in the American economy. We don't need this dangerous new law. Please join me in asking Congress to repeal the "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act." https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/110

The fallacy of CPSIA

2009-03-22T06:20:00.000-07:00

I woke up this morning with a new thought on CPSIA: "CPSIA is based on a fallacy -- that the presence of lead is dangerous. No, the ingestion of lead is dangerous, and there is a big difference."

I've realized that, in various ways of course, for the last two months..I just hadn't thought of it quite that way. Might have something to do with the fact that I was recently studying the fallacies of economics...

Representative Dingell's Letter/Official Responses

2009-03-21T22:06:00.000-07:00

On March 5 Representative Dingell sent a letter to the CPSC with a number of questions for them about CPSIA. Since his letter was posted on his website, and quickly became a matter of public record – many of us who are being hit hard by the new regulations chose to respond to his questions as well. I initially faxed Representative Dingell my answers and then contributed them to the massive number of emails that were collected for delivery to him.

The CPSC currently consists of only two Commissioners – Nancy Nord and Thomas Moore. On 20 March, Mr. Moore’s two-page letter appeared on the CPSC website. It would not be an overstatement to say that we do not see eye to eye with Mr. Moore, or vice versa.

Comments from Moore’s letter, and my reactions to them:
" ... two Commissioners who do not view the Act in the same light and who do not always agree on the Act's meaning...That is also why there is no Commission response to your questions.”

"Despite the hue and cry of some in the business community who will never be happy with the closer scrutiny and accountability..." Wait! WE'RE the bad guys?

"However, I think that when the agency gets the third Commissioner we will be better able to address some of the concerns voiced by staff and by industry. Until then any legislative “fixes" are premature. Only the Commission should recommend what, if any, changes should be made to the CPSIA…” So, we in the business world are told to forget changes until they can get their act together?!? Maybe the whole law could just be put on hold until then?

Ms. Nord, on the other hand, did try to get reasonable answers to the questions asked. She referred them to the CPSC staff – who responded with a detailed, well-though out 21-page letter. It was somewhat comforting to read their responses to Mr. Dingell’s questions. I have included highlights from the questions, “the staff’s answers”, and my comments below. (I hope to finish in the next few days…)

1.To what extent has robust implementation of the Act been hampered by CPSC’s lack of resources?“The CPSC has made implementation of the CPSIA our highest priority.”
This sounds like the first problem with this Act to me – so the CPSC has gone from its real task of “Saving Lives and Keeping Families Safe” to focusing on implementing CPSIA – which will not save lives.

“As we implement each new requirement, we are seeing unanticipated issues arise, and we are learning more of the far-reaching effects of the CPSIA…”So, it seems the CPSC is getting unintended consequences, even if Congress is not.

2. Given the paramount importance of ensuring children’s safety and the overall mission of the CPSC, to what extent are the deadlines in the Act practicable for CPSC and industry to meet acting with all deliberate speed?“…the deadlines mandated in the CPSIA have jeopardized our ability to meet Commission priorities and proven to be too much for a relatively small agency to handle all at once”

Just the question being asked NOW was aggravating…Retailers and Resellers are being hit hard by the February 10, 2009 deadline already – we would have liked this discussion to have occurred at least one month before that deadline, not one month after it! And if the deadlines are too much for the CPSC, imagine what they are doing to businesses.

“…the statue did not permit the agency to exempt products from the scope of the definition of children’s product…”While Congress is busy blaming the CPSC for its actions and lack of actions, they have done nothing to untie their hands, and give them the power they need to make these types of decisions. (Apparently it’s easier to play the blame game than it is to fix a bad piece of legislation.)

“…each of the various initiatives in the Act…will require significantly more time to implement than anyone originally anticipated.”So will they move the February 10, 2010 deadline again? If so, how about sooner rather than later?

“The Commission staff must have some relief from the deadlines imposed.”While we would concur, we would point out that affected businesses (and consumers) need relief even more!

“Use of risk assessment methodology would all the Commission to establish priorities, provide for common sense exemptions, and set CPSIA implementation deadlines.”
“Risk assessment” and “common sense exemptions”? Great idea. How about sooner rather than later? Neither of those seemed to be factored into writing the law.

“…An ideal solution to these challenges would be for Congress to let the Commission decide what level of testing is required for which products…”Since the CPSC must enforce the law, it would seem appropriate that they have some flexibility in making decisions about the law.

“The question asks us to comment on the impact of the deadlines on industry…every industry needed more time to determine which, if any of its products were covered under the definition of children’s product, test those products for compliance, and develop new methods of manufacture…”

“The scope of products covered by the new regulation and the amount of inventory implicated went well beyond what many may have contemplated.” To which we say, Amen!

Amend CPSIA Rally April 1

2009-03-20T06:39:00.000-07:00

Since Congress keeps canceling hearings bout CPSIA, and uninviting folks, they are creating their own invitations to their own event: Wednesday, April 1, at 10 a.m. there is to be an Amend CPSIA Rally in Washington, D.C. Details can be found on the website for those who are planning to attend the event. They also plan to keep it updated for those who will be unable to attend as well.

It is supposed to be a coincidence that the Rally is being held on April Fool's Day, but I wonder...I was just thinking about Shakespeare's line: "Oh, what fools these mortals be." I couldn't help but think that it connected well to CPSIA.

I am very disappointed that I will be unable to personally attend the rally, but I will be following it on-line. I hope it contributes to the overturning of this horrendous law sooner rather than later.

Yes, the Law Did Go Into Effect on February 10, 2009

2009-03-18T18:09:00.000-07:00

I've heard it so many times in the last month, that sometimes I doubt my own research. A well-meaning customer, or sometimes, even another retailer or reseller, says to me: "But, wait, I thought they weren't enforcing the law until 2010?" Or some other similar sounding question...And each time, I doubt myself again -- if only for a little while. How did I miss it? Do I really have my facts straight? Are we really making "much ado about nothing?"

And then I look again. Back at CPSC, back around the internet. Where are the facts? What are the facts?

And each time, much to my relief (no, that's not quite right!)...there it is again...The truth...In the midst of all the misinformation, it really can be found. Yes, the testing requirements have been postponed until February 2010 by the last minute stay. But not the other requirements! As a reseller I still cannot sell items that violate the new lead and phthalates limits -- even though I have no real way of knowing which pre-owned items do and do not violate them!

And because of the nature of my business, I have to think about reselling, retailing, and manufacturing. And only the manufacturing part has gotten a slight reprieve.

My recent research took me to a Printers Website -- ImPrint: Making Print's Mark on Capitol Hill. They spell out exactly what the stay did and didn't do in their industry.

So, no, unfortunately, over a month after CPSIA has gone into effect, the resellers and the retailers of this country are still suffering under the unreasonable burdens of this bad law.

Lead is Feared in Children's Books

2009-03-17T16:31:00.000-07:00

Those of us in the book business have been following the CPSC's position on CPSIA and books for a couple of months now, but today's Associated Press article on CPSIA and Libraries make it sound like it's new news to them.

This is the second article that I've read recently that uses this basic line in the middle of it: "Lead poisoning has been linked to irreversible learning disabilities and behavioral problems." In both articles, the comment is made in the midst of the article -- with no explanation. The statement is true, as far as it goes, but I would contend that it is inaccurate when taken out of context like this! Yes, lead poisoning has been linked to all sorts of problems. But fortunately, most of the things being taken off the market by CPSIA have not been linked to lead poisoning.

In fact, the CDC has been dealing with lead poisoning almost 20 years longer than the CPSC. And a health communications specialist at the CDC said lead-based ink in children's books poses little danger. She is quoted in the article as saying, "But on a scale of one to 10, this is like a 0.5 level of concern." Frankly, with their two track records, I take the CDC's word for that over the CPSC!

I would also think that Librarians would be good sources of information about what libraries are going through with their books. But the Houston librarian quoted in this article seems to think banning children's books printed before 1986 is no big deal: "Frankly, most of our books have been well-used and well-appreciated...They don't last 24 years." Maybe children in Texas are harder on their library books than they are here in Alabama...We find children's books in ours that were printed before 1986 on a regular basis -- in fact I bought 40 library books from a library not so long ago -- all more than 30 years old, and all in very good condition.

It is good to see books and CPSIA being addressed for a change -- now let's hope Congress will actually start listening to all the fuss sooner rather than later!

Regulations Reach Thrift Stores

2009-03-16T19:29:00.000-07:00

This article from New York talks of yet another Thrift Store dealing with CPSIA:
http://www.herkimertelegram.com/news/x599198331/Regulations-reach-thrift-stores

The store manager is now facing what many of the rest of us have been thinking for a month or more now: “When in doubt, throw it out."

I was bothered by the attitude and quotes from Scott Wolfson, the CPSC spokesperson that is quoted in the article:
Wolfson "explained by no means is the aim of the CPSC to impair the ability to do provide goods to consumers. 'Charities, thrift stores, We’re not looking to put them out of business,' he said...The 'multi-million dollar' fines are for 'manufacturers and retailers,' Wolfson added, 'Thrift stores, we want to help them make the good decisions.'"

Wait, let me get this straight. They don't want to put us out of business...But they want us to "make good decisions"...And considering the way the law is written AND the way the law is being interpreted, how exactly do they expect us to do that? Has he not read the CPCS's "Guidance on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) for Small Businesses, Resellers, Crafters and Charities" Here they state, right at the beginning of the document: "You can protect yourself by screening for violative products. But more importantly, as a business person, you do not want to be selling products that have the potential to cause harm to anyone, especially a child."

How exactly would we know what has the POTENTIAL to cause harm to a child? Especially since, they go on to answer the question: 'How can I determine if something has lead in it before I sell it?' by telling us we MUST:

* Test the product;
* Refuse to accept or sell the product, which will mean disposing of it if you already have it in your inventory;
* Use your best judgment based on your knowledge of the product;
or
* Contact the manufacturer about questionable products."

The only feasible option of those listed, for most resellers is to refuse to sell the product. And they even went on to tell us "which will mean disposing of it if you already have it in your inventory."....But we're supposed to believe they don't want to put us out of business...What am I missing here?

Top Motorcycle Dealer To Challenge CPSC Lead Content Rule

2009-03-16T17:14:00.000-07:00

"California motorcycle dealer and industry icon Malcolm Smith says he plans to sell kid’s ATVs and motorcycles to consumers next Thursday (6 am PST, March 19, 2009) in protest against a federal law that limits the amount of lead that can be contained in products made for children 12 and younger."

"...So, here we have an industry icon, who is a small business owner, and arguably, the Number One motorcycle dealer in the country, challenging the authority of a federal agency which is enforcing a lousy law that threatens to put a lot of people out of work and, possibly, unnecessarily endangering a lot young off-r0ad riders."

http://dealernewsblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/top-dealer-to-challenge-cpsc-lead-content-rule/

Our best wishes to Mr. Smith -- and hopes and prayers that he doesn't end up in jail because of this crazy law.

ATVs and the Lead Craziness

2009-03-16T09:05:00.000-07:00

It is amazing to me that our politicians won't address the problems in the CPSIA legislation, and that for the most part the Media is ignoring it/us as well!

Across the country, the occasional local media are spotlighting the problems being caused by the new regulations in their community. But coverage of any kind is limited at best. I first contacted our local media two months ago (TV, radio, and newspaper) and they have ignored CPSIA almost completely!

So many industries are being hit on so many levels: books, clothes, jewelry, crafts, toys...manufacturers, consignment shops, and retail shops as well. Some of the financial hits are right now -- in the inventory we can't sell, some will be in the future, in the products we won't be able to sell because of the increased costs of testing.

The one industry that seems to come up most often in the news articles I do see is the ATV industry. As the good weather of spring moves into summer months, their losses just continue to mount.

Many articles deal with the pain being felt by the ATV industry, here’s one of the latest: Youth ATV and Motorcycle Ban: “In addition, dealers can also no longer sell parts or accessories that were made for these products. ‘We can't even take them in on trade so the consumer can't trade them back into us, they can't buy parts, they can't buy anything that was designed for a youth under 12 years of age,’” explains one of the ATV dealership owners hit hard by this law.

This article is from a couple of days ago: The Kids Bikes Ban: Digging Deeper -- What's new on the battle against the Feds Many of us can relate to the opening line: “Right now, we're all wondering: How could this happen?”

And in Delaware: “Rules on toxin stall mini-cylce sales” Which again, starts with these words that most of us agree with: “The government talks a lot about taking action to help small businesses. But businesses say they could do without this kind of action.”

One question I do have for the Congressmen and CPSC folks who don't seem to "get it" -- How could motorbikes, bicycles, ATV's, etc. be made without lead? Never mind the ludicrous idea that any of those are posing health hazards with respect to lead poisoning...But they can't be safely made without lead...Which I thought would/should give them automatic exemption under this crazy new law....But apparently, like the fabric and apparel industry and the book publishing industry, they continue to wait for their exemptions...Meanwhile much of their inventory can't be sold, bikes can't be fixed, and so on...

Lead and The Center for Disease Control and Prevention

2009-03-16T07:15:00.000-07:00

I originally shared the following information on www.cpsiahurtskids.com, a great site to see links to numerous news articles about the effects of CPSIA, and what many of us are doing to combat this dreadful legislation.

Lead and The Center for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/

It would be beneficial to all of us fighting CPSIA if one part of our government spoke to another. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (the CDC) has been fighting lead poisoning in children for almost 20 years now. And doing a very good job of it, from what I can determine. I would think they are more of experts in this area than either Congress or the CPSC. Since neither of those groups will listen to us, I wonder if there is someone at the CDC that they would listen to!

I have been wandering around on their site, and reading through various of their statements for the last few days, and have run across many things there that go along with what we have been saying and fighting.

For one thing, they seem to be attacking the problem logically and scientifically (neither of which can be said for the current “Kings of Lead Prevention” at Congress and the CPSC. One of their first paragraph states clearly: “CDC’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program is committed to the Healthy People’s goal of eliminating elevated blood lead levels in children by 2010. CDC continues to assist state and local childhood lead poisoning prevention programs, to provide a scientific basis for policy decisions, and to ensure that health issues are addressed in decisions about housing and the environment.”

Some of the CDC's actual accomplishments (as opposed to what CPSIA has failed and will continue to fail to do) include:

Since its inception in 1990, the CDC childhood lead poisoning prevention effort has:

* Funded nearly 60 childhood lead poisoning prevention programs to develop, implement, and evaluate lead poisoning prevention activities;
* Provided technical assistance to support the development of state and local lead screening plans;
* Fostered agreements between state and local health departments and state Medicaid agencies to link surveillance and Medicaid data;
* Provided training to public health professionals through CDC’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Training Center;
* Developed the Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance System through which 46 states currently report data to CDC;
* Expanded public health laboratory capacity in states to analyze blood and environmental samples and to ensure quality, timely, and accurate analysis of results; and
* Published targeted screening and case management guidelines which provide health departments and health care providers with standards to identify and manage children with elevated blood lead levels.

The CDC has a lengthy document on their website (http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/about/fedstrategy2000.pdf) about the Federal Strategy in 2000 to almost completely eliminate lead poisoning in children by 2010. Guess what, they didn't need CPSIA to do it! Since the CDC began its work in 1990, they have almost completely eliminated childhood lead poisoning!

Their tips to prevent lead poisoning, which again, not surprisingly to us, don't include removing their old books, clothes, bikes, etc:

"Lead poisoning is entirely preventable. The key is stopping children from coming into contact with lead and treating children who have been poisoned by lead.

The goal is to prevent lead exposure to children before they are harmed. There are many ways parents can reduce a child’s exposure to lead. The key is stopping children from coming into contact with lead. Lead hazards in a child’s environment must be identified and controlled or removed safely.

Lead-based paint is the major source of exposure for lead in U.S. children. All houses built before 1978 are likely to contain some lead-based paint. However, it is the deterioration of this paint that causes a problem."

In fact under their FAQs, they have a very short list of the other possible ways to get lead poisoning, outside of old paint in older homes:

"Other sources of lead poisoning are related to:

* hobbies (making stained-glass windows)
* work (recycling or making automobile batteries)
* drinking water (lead pipes, solder, brass fixtures, valves can all leach lead)
* home health remedies (azarcon and greta, which are used for upset stomach or indigestion; pay-loo-ah, which is used for rash or fever)."

What is most amazing to me is that NOTHING on their list of concerns for lead poisoning is being dealt with by CPSIA -- and NOTHING that is being dealt a death blow by CPSIA was ever a lead concern for the CDC!!!

Again, for those of us who are dealing with a law that wants to impede the selling and purchasing of products intended for children up to age 12, the CDC, has a much more reasonable view of who is at risk:

* "Children under the age of 6 years because they are growing so rapidly and because they tend to put their hands or other objects into their mouths."

And what should we do to prevent lead poisoning in our children. Besides keeping them away from peeling and cracking paint in old homes, this was part of the CDC's advice: "Regularly wash children’s hands and toys. Hands and toys can become contaminated from household dust or exterior soil. Both are known lead sources."

Again, it is not their books, clothes, bikes, or other items that are exposing them to lead risks. It is the old paint, and the dust and soil that have been contaminated by old lead paint!

Should we be concerned about lead poisoning in this country? Yes. Should we be overreacting and banning items that have never caused lead problems? Obviously not. The CDC deals with the question of prevention:

"How your child may be exposed:
Lead is invisible to the naked eye and has no smell. Children may be exposed to it from consumer products through normal hand-to-mouth activity, which is part of their normal development. They often place toys, fingers, and other objects in their mouth, exposing themselves to lead paint or dust."

So, again, the ingested lead is a problem for children six and under -- if and only if they eat the lead-laden product (such as a small piece of jewelry, but not the handlebars on their bicycle!)

"Just wearing toy jewelry will not cause your child to have a high level of lead in his/her blood. However, small children often put things in their mouth. If you have a small child in your household you should make sure the child does not have access to jewelry or other items that may contain lead."

In the federal strategy paper mentioned above, the CDC clearly explains who is at risk (and again, the list does not include 12 year olds!):
"Lead is most hazardous to the nation’s roughly 24 million children under the age of 6. Their still-developing nervous systems are particularly vulnerable to lead, and their normal play activities expose them to lead
paint hazards and lead-contaminated dust and soil. Children between ages one and three are at greatest risk because of normal hand-to-mouth activity and the increase in mobility during their second and third years
which make lead hazards more accessible to them."

Some of my early thoughts on CPSIA

2009-03-15T12:25:00.000-07:00

“First do no harm”. This motto of health professionals should be a requirement for our elected legislative officials. Instead, it seems that their motto is “good ideas make good laws”. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 is a great example of that not working.

On February 10^th, the economic world stood still – and very few people noticed. It was not the economic tidal wave that had been predicted earlier in the year – but the waves were felt across the country, and will continue to be felt into the future.

Activist groups such as Consumer Union and Citizen Watch applaud the law, and are working hard to keep any changes from being made to it. They mock the naysayers as being ignorant and misinformed, and accuse small business people of overreacting to this law.

For those who have missed the outrage on either side over CPSIA (which would be most of us), let me explain it briefly:

The background: In 2007 large quantities of lead laden toys were imported from Asia; much fuss was made about it when it was discovered, and thousands of toys had to be recalled.

The response: From these unfortunate incidents came a wide-sweeping bill. Because it was presented in the name of “protecting children”, little attention was paid by our elected officials to the overzealous nature of the law brought before them. Our congressmen and senators, almost without fail, voted for the bill. (Only one congressman voted against the final version, and just three senators.) And on August 14, 2008, President Bush signed it in to law. Some aspects of the law went into effect immediately, others were slated to go into effect six months later, on February 10, 2009, and still more a year later, in August, 2009.

With the above facts, it is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that many of us who are being affected by the law have spent more time studying it and debating it than did our elected officials who enacted it. Most of us who are being affected by it had not even heard about it until a month or so before the February 10^th deadline. But since then we have become immersed in it: Reading the 60+ page bill itself (which we can safely guess most of our Representatives did not do); and pouring over the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) website: reading their responses to the FAQs, viewing the hearings they had with the fabric and apparel industry and the book publishers, and much more.

A summary of the law: In short, all children’s products (defined as products intended for children 12 and under) must meet newer, stiffer lead limits and phthalates limits (an element used in making some plastics more pliable). AND all said products will eventually need to be tested and certified to meet those limits (more on that later).

The problems: It sounds good to say that we want children’s products to be safe. But let’s look at how wide sweeping this piece of legislation is:

1) Children up through age 12 are included – an upper age of 5 or 6 would have been more in line with the problems that had occurred, and the purported intent of the law, and made the implementation of it much less drastic.

2) “All children’s products” are being included – which sounds like a good idea until you look at what “all” includes.

3) For example, books are included in “all”. “Regular books”, which could easily be defined as those without play value, have never been recalled, and never been a health risk. Yet they are currently included in this law.

4) Children’s clothing and other fabric items are being included, even though these have been seldom included in recall issues. (And where there has been an issue – it has generally been unacceptable lead levels introduced through silk screening or fasteners – coming in from Asia.)

5) And there is no distinction in the law to mass produced items that end up on “big box” store shelves (and again, where the problem initially came from) and items that are being hand-crafted or self-published on a small scale (neither of which caused the problems “being addressed” by this legislation).

6) And resellers are being required to abide by these restrictions – not just those who are retailing new items.

Why are any of the above problems? Let’s review the most important ways:

1) Let’s start with resellers. Again, it sounds good to say that we want all unsafe products removed from store shelves. But what does this become to resellers? The CPSC has been talking out of both sides of its mouth in this regards. They issued a “clarification” that resellers are not expected to test the products that come into their stores. However, and this is the big problem, they cannot sell things that are banned by this law – that would include the thousands of things already recalled, and the countless more that will become illegal under the new lead and phthalates limits, but that are already in circulation. When the CPSC was asked how resellers could possibly know if something had too much lead – the answer was simple: “Test it”.

2) And the list of items that have been recalled is massive. I spent an hour looking over the CPSC’s data base of over 4,000 recalled items, and cannot even imagine having to go through that every time a used “children’s product” came into my store. Resellers who are paying attention to these two requirements may well decide it is easier to stop carrying children’s products than to worry about the risks of inadvertently violating the law. (I know at least one reseller who is cutting out all risky children’s items as a result of this.) Has anyone thought through the practical implications of this for families who rely on the second-hand market to make their budgets work? And how many items will end up in landfills now that really didn’t need to?

3) Once the next stage goes into effect – it will become practically impossible for hand crafters, and self-publishers, who produce “children’s products” to continue, because they will have the same testing and certification requirements of the “big guys”. This is not economically feasible for most of these small businesses, and most of them will have to stop producing those items when this portion of the law is enforced. Fortunately, the deadline for the certification and testing requirements has been moved out another 12 months, but it still remains out there on the horizon in the not so distant future.

4) Many perfectly safe children’s items (such as books and most clothing items) that remain in the market will go up in price in the near future because of the testing and certification requirements that are being applied across the board to all children’s products. Again, it’s not that all of these requirements are unreasonable, but what is unreasonable is that they are being applied to an entire market, instead of just the areas that would make sense (such as children’s toys).

As parents, we want our children to be safe. But we do not expect the government to do our job. We are capable of making sure that their toys are safe and that they don’t eat their books. We don’t need a “Nanny Government” to do our jobs for us.