From: Rick Woldenberg
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 1:55 PM
To: 'judith.bailey@mail.house.gov'; 'Christian.Fjeld@mail.house.gov'; 'robin.appleberry@mail.house.gov'
Cc: 'brian.mccullough@mail.house.gov'; 'shannon.weinberg@mail.house.gov'; 'william.carty@mail.house.gov'; 'mjg@brown-gidding.com'; Etienne Veber; 'challengeandfun@gmail.com'; 'kathleen@fashion-incubator.com'; 'Stephen Lamar (slamar@apparelandfootwear.org)'; 'Nancy Nord (nnord@cpsc.gov)'; 'Joe Martyak (jmartyak@cpsc.gov)'; 'Mary Toro (MToro@cpsc.gov)'; 'tmoore@cpsc.gov'; 'Patrick Magnuson (patrick.magnuson@mail.house.gov)'; 'Carter Keithley (ckeithley@toy-tia.org)'; 'Rick Locker (fblocker@LockerLaw.com)'; 'Desmond, Edward'; 'David Callet (calletd@gtlaw.com)'; 'ravitz.georgia@arentfox.com'; Adam Lerner (aml@lernerbooks.com); Dennis Goldman; 'Pamela Gilbert (pamelag@cuneolaw.com)'; 'Robert Adler'; 'Dan Marshall (dan@peapods.com)'; 'erik.lieberman@mail.house.gov'; cfalvey@cpsc.gov; Karen Fuchs (kfuchs@scholastic.com)
Subject: CPSIA Problems Seem Endless
Ahead of our phone conference today, I thought you might want to read the below letter represented to be from Random House. Apparently, it really is Goodnight Moon time now. We also heard today from a manufacturer of industrial products that certain of its distributors are demanding CPSIA test certificates. Why? Because although the products are intended for industrial use by the manufacturer, the dealer apparently has some Middle and High School customers. Although the manufacturer is fully entitled to ignore the CPSIA, the dealer seems to be subject to the new testing rules, and thus the market demands that the manufacturer waste vast amounts of money on useless testing – or commerce ends.
These sad stories are just examples of the damage done by the CPSIA. It is crushing commerce NOW. Honestly, what did anyone expect when a law was written to make everything illegal unless proven otherwise. The U.S. economy is infinitely diverse and complex. The breadth of business models in this economy is so vast that laws touching them all must be very carefully considered. As the market is clearly telling us, it is just not possible to outlaw everything and assign the CPSC the task of creating a list of exceptions. Attempting to fix this problem with bandaids is destined to fail – there is no way out without legislative action.
The outcry from members of the Children’s Products industry is for fair laws – laws that permit commerce while also protecting children. We are all passionate about kids and want them safe. Safety, however, is not an abstract concept. Let’s work together to build a law that works – that catches bad guys, that protects kids and lets American business continue and prosper.
Sincerely,
Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
rwoldenberg@learningresources.com
January 7, 2009
Application Of Lead-Testing Requirements To Books Threatens
Removal Of Children's Books From Classrooms, Schools & Libraries
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), enacted in August
of last year, imposes stringent requirements for lead-content testing
of toys and other children's products. Beginning February 10, any
children's product found to contain more than the new limits on lead
content as a result of such testing will be treated as a banned
hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.
Although paper-based books are not "regulated products" within the
jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and have no
history of presenting toxic risks to children due to lead content, the
Commission's Office of General Counsel, responding two weeks ago to a
request for an advisory opinion by the Association of American
Publishers and allied industries on the limited application of CPSIA
testing requirements to such books, has opined that "a book intended
or designed primarily for children would need to meet" the new lead
content limits and thus must be tested to determine whether they are
safe for children's use.
The advisory opinion reached this conclusion despite the Association
of American Publishers' efforts to distinguish actual, paper-based
books from plastic children's toys in the shape or form of books that
are intended to be played with or serve as teething devices for young
children, and despite a broad showing of actual test results
demonstrating that the ink, paper, paperboard, adhesive and binding
components of actual paper-based books do not present a risk of lead
toxicity to children.
If the CPSIA is applied to paper-based books, as indicated in the
advisory opinion of the CPSC General Counsel, children's book
publishers, manufacturers and distributors will be confronted with
several nightmarish scenarios. All existing paper-based children's
books such as The Cat in the Hat, Goodnight Moon and Harry Potter as
well as thousands of textbook titles—tens of millions of
books—currently on the shelves of our nation's classrooms, public and
school libraries, bookstores and in warehouses may simply be removed
and destroyed because they cannot feasibly be tested to assure
compliance with these unfounded toxicity concerns. All new
paper-based books—not plastic toys in the shape of books—will be
needlessly subjected to expensive and time-consuming testing that will
overwhelm the few laboratories accredited for testing of actual
children's toys and other children's products potentially presenting
real threats of lead toxicity. These scenarios will have severe
adverse effects on our children's education.
WE NEED YOUR IMMEDIATE HELP TO AVOID THIS UNNECESSARY LOOMING CRISIS.
Call the representatives listed below and explain to them that this is
an urgent issue with potentially dire consequences, and request that
paper-based children's books be given an immediate exemption from this
law.
Ordinary paper-based children's books have no history of posing a lead
threat to children.
Despite this, there is no way to assure book retailers that current
titles are actually in compliance. This is already triggering a
crushing and wholly unnecessary rejection of children's books by
stores and distributors.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has the power to exempt
categories from the scope of the CPSIA, and should exempt ordinary
paper-based children's books.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi Senator Daniel Inouye
Washington, DC Office (202) 225-4965 Washington, DC
Office (202) 224-3934
San Francisco, CA (415) 556-4862
Honolulu, HI (808) 541-2542
Representative Henry Waxman Senator Chuck Schumer
Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Washington, DC
Office (202) 224-6542
Washington, DC Office (202) 225-3976 New York City
(212) 486-4430
Los Angeles (323) 651-1040
Senator Jay Rockefeller
Washington, DC Office (202) 224-6472
Charleston, WV (304) 347-5372
Monday, January 12, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Can We Put Humpty Back Together Again after February 10?
From: Rick Woldenberg
Sent: Sun 1/11/2009 10:20 PM
To: erik.lieberman@mail.house.gov
Cc: Stephen Lamar (slamar@apparelandfootwear.org); Etienne Veber; Michael Gidding (mjg@brown-gidding.com); Rob Wilson (rob@challengeandfun.com); Patrick Magnuson (patrick.magnuson@mail.house.gov); kathleen@fashion-incubator.com; Nancy Nord (nnord@cpsc.gov); Joe Martyak (jmartyak@cpsc.gov); tmoore@cpsc.gov; cfalvey@cpsc.gov; Mary Toro (MToro@cpsc.gov); Christian Tamotsu Fjeld (Christian.Fjeld@mail.house.gov); Judy Bailey (judith.bailey@mail.house.gov); Robin Appleberry (robin.appleberry@mail.house.gov); Brian McCullough (brian.mccullough@mail.house.gov); Shannon Weinberg (shannon.weinberg@mail.house.gov); Will Carty (william.carty@mail.house.gov); Dan Marshall (dan@peapods.com); Pamela Gilbert (pamelag@cuneolaw.com); Robert Adler
Subject: RE: CPSIA and Small Business
Eric,
Here's an article from the Christian Science Monitor (Jan. 9 issue) on the Small Business issues under the CPSIA. This article, which I only discovered this evening, echoes many points I have made in correspondence with the Rush Subcommittee, notably that the CPSC cannot fix the law, that the age limits in the definition of Children's Products are inappropriate and that the law presents a broad threat to literally thousands of businesses, notably Small Business. No one in the article seems to think that this law is necessary to assure safety, another view I share. The economic issues under the CPSIA are manifold, as this article confirms. Despite the focus of the article on toys, the threats span many industries - in fact, ALL industries making products for children up to 12 years of age. Imagine the breadth of that impact - it's mindboggling.
I hope your committee will be able to shed some light on these issues shortly, as February 10 promises to be quite deadly if nothing is done. I would hate to see all the dread predictions come true - there will no satisfaction in seeing needless economic devastation based on a flimsy and poorly thought-through safety rationale. And I fear that, like children's rhyme instructs, all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to put Humpty together again. I think we can do much better than that - with the help of Congress, safety can be assured while the interests of Small Business (and other business) can be protected. This won't involve trading money or jobs for safety, either.
Thanks for your interest in this matter.
Best Regards,
Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
rwoldenberg@learningresources.com
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0109/p25s23-hfgn.html
Ava Mar, 8, played with a wooden train set at the Play Store in Palo Alto, Calif., on Dec. 22, 2008. Worries over lead paint in mass-market toys made the holidays a little brighter for handcrafted toy makers last year, but now the federal government's response to the scare has some workshops fearful that this Christmas might be their last.
Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP
A new law hurts small toy stores and toymakers
New regulations banning harmful chemicals in children's items has had unintended consequences for small businesses and crafters.
By Yvonne Zipp Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
posted January 9, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. EST
Amy Turn Sharp started making toys because of Thomas the Tank Engine. The 2007 recall of wooden trains with lead paint inspired Ms. Turn Sharp and her husband, a master carpenter, to start making wooden toys for babies.
"It's really just Joseph and me in our backyard. No machinery, no workers," says Turn Sharp, whose toymaking business, Little Alouette, makes it feasible for her to stay home with her two children. (Making toys is a family affair: Their 4-1/2 year-old son likes to help rub organic flaxseed into the finished wood teethers, blocks, and trains.) The Worthington, Ohio, couple make all their products from maple, felled by a neighboring farmer. "It's just us producing things by hand."
But now fallout from the recall that got them started and others may very well close them down. "We started our company because of Thomas the Tank Engine. We were sick of unsafe toys," says Turn Sharp. "And here we are, and we're going to go out of business because of unsafe toys."
After the recall of millions of toys manufactured in China in 2007, Congress passed the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) last year to protect children from lead and phthalates. Under the new guidelines, which are set to take effect Feb. 10, any product manufactured for children under 12 must undergo third-party testing for certification.
The law isn't just for toys, stress critics, who say it is too sweeping and will unfairly impact small businesses. Clothing, backpacks, bicycles, books, science equipment – anything intended for a child under 12 is affected. They argue that the law, however well-intentioned, has the potential to cause thousands of small US businesses to close at a time when unemployment is surging and the country is entering its second year of recession.
"Once again, here's a situation where it's the small business that suffers the most," says Kathryn Howard, an environmental and consumer expert with the New York State Pollution Prevention Institute at Rochester Institute of Technology. "Mattel can easily afford to test every one of their Barbie dolls. The smaller guys are the ones that manufacture in the US – as opposed to China and other parts of the world.
"I see the environmental benefit," she says. But she suggests that the government explore ways to make the testing more affordable for small companies and phase it in over a longer period of time.
Testing costs can start from $400 to $500 and run into thousands of dollars, according to some estimates, depending on the complexity of the item. Each unique product has to be tested – meaning that small, medium, and large shirts must be tested individually. In a line of stuffed toys birds, for example, the chickadee, robin, and eagle all need a separate test.
The prospective bill is causing sticker shock and cries of outrage from small US-based artisans and manufacturers, independent toy shops, and baby boutique stores.
"We need an outcry from consumers: 'Wait we asked for safe toys, we didn't ask you to put the industry out of business,' " says Kathleen McHugh, president of American Specialty Toy Retailing Association in Chicago, which has 1,000 members.
She says that independent toy stores have two alternatives, neither of them good: They can have all their products tested or throw all their untested inventory out. Either scenario would put them out of business, she says.
That indeed is the scenario facing Debbie Baillie's Rowdy Rascals toy store in Snohomish, Wash. "I cannot afford to get rid of my inventory and get in new [before Feb. 10]. I will go bankrupt. ... We have just over a month to get in compliance, and I don't know how to do that," says Ms. Baillie, who explains that her family can't afford to have the store fail. Her parents took out equity in their home so she could open the store, and her sister is her partner. If Rowdy Rascals shop goes go under, her entire family will be in financial trouble.
Baillie opened the store because she wanted to create a place for the community. "I wanted to be that old toy-store lady who knew all the kids and their kids. To see it crushed by something like this, it just breaks my heart."
"The commission is working to determine if there is any flexibility in the law for small businesses," says Patty Davis, spokeswoman for the CPSC. It is considering exemptions for electronics and other specific product categories. They may include products where the amounts of lead naturally falls below the limits. Lead, for example, is not found in cotton, wool, or wood.
But, says Julie Vallese, director of public affairs for the CPSC, "The agency has the authority to enforce the law, not change the law. Congress wrote a very specific, one-size fits all piece of legislation.... Because Congress wrote the law in a very specific way, relief may only be able to come from Congress."
Another sector of the economy, thrift and consignment shops, who had been among the most vocal about the economic hardship the new testing requirements would cause, received relief Thursday. The CPSC ruled that they would not have to test the items on their shelves – although the CPSC says owners still need to be confident that items for sale meet the new safety requirements.
That's good news for owners of children's consignment shops, such as Carol Vaporis, owner of Duck Duck Goose in Newport Richey, Fla., who had said that testing would have meant she had to close her doors.
It's also good news for lower-income families, many of whom rely on consignment and thrift stores to clothe their children.
The implications for parents aren't only economic. If the law isn't changed, Ms. Howard says that parents are also going to find fewer toys for children not made by the giants of the industry, and those that are available from smaller manufacturers will likely be more expensive, to help offset the costs of testing.
"You now have an even bigger gap between the toys the rich kids play with and the toys the not-so-rich kids play with," she says. "Now your kids are forced to play with toys that are not the best – maybe they just barely meet the criteria."
Howard also suggests that perhaps the age limit in the law should be rethought. "The reasoning behind the law is to protect young children. Twelve-year-old kids aren't putting things in their mouths. If a kid is old enough to ride a bike, they're old enough not to be chewing on it."
Back in Ohio, the Turn Sharps are unsure how to proceed. Little Alouette had a booming holiday season. "We made so many toys, Joseph had blisters on his hands," Turn Sharp says.
But their business is so small, they simply can't afford the mandatory lead testing required under the new guidelines, she says. "This law was intended for the big, big boys."
"I don't know what I'll be making on Feb. 10," says Turn Sharp. "I don't know that I'll be making anything."
But she's not giving up. "I'm pretty hopeful that government will have to take a look around. Hopefully, they'll say, 'We don't want to destroy people's livelihood.' "
Still, she adds, "If you need any baby gifts, buy them before Feb. 10."
Sent: Sun 1/11/2009 10:20 PM
To: erik.lieberman@mail.house.gov
Cc: Stephen Lamar (slamar@apparelandfootwear.org); Etienne Veber; Michael Gidding (mjg@brown-gidding.com); Rob Wilson (rob@challengeandfun.com); Patrick Magnuson (patrick.magnuson@mail.house.gov); kathleen@fashion-incubator.com; Nancy Nord (nnord@cpsc.gov); Joe Martyak (jmartyak@cpsc.gov); tmoore@cpsc.gov; cfalvey@cpsc.gov; Mary Toro (MToro@cpsc.gov); Christian Tamotsu Fjeld (Christian.Fjeld@mail.house.gov); Judy Bailey (judith.bailey@mail.house.gov); Robin Appleberry (robin.appleberry@mail.house.gov); Brian McCullough (brian.mccullough@mail.house.gov); Shannon Weinberg (shannon.weinberg@mail.house.gov); Will Carty (william.carty@mail.house.gov); Dan Marshall (dan@peapods.com); Pamela Gilbert (pamelag@cuneolaw.com); Robert Adler
Subject: RE: CPSIA and Small Business
Eric,
Here's an article from the Christian Science Monitor (Jan. 9 issue) on the Small Business issues under the CPSIA. This article, which I only discovered this evening, echoes many points I have made in correspondence with the Rush Subcommittee, notably that the CPSC cannot fix the law, that the age limits in the definition of Children's Products are inappropriate and that the law presents a broad threat to literally thousands of businesses, notably Small Business. No one in the article seems to think that this law is necessary to assure safety, another view I share. The economic issues under the CPSIA are manifold, as this article confirms. Despite the focus of the article on toys, the threats span many industries - in fact, ALL industries making products for children up to 12 years of age. Imagine the breadth of that impact - it's mindboggling.
I hope your committee will be able to shed some light on these issues shortly, as February 10 promises to be quite deadly if nothing is done. I would hate to see all the dread predictions come true - there will no satisfaction in seeing needless economic devastation based on a flimsy and poorly thought-through safety rationale. And I fear that, like children's rhyme instructs, all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to put Humpty together again. I think we can do much better than that - with the help of Congress, safety can be assured while the interests of Small Business (and other business) can be protected. This won't involve trading money or jobs for safety, either.
Thanks for your interest in this matter.
Best Regards,
Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
rwoldenberg@learningresources.com
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0109/p25s23-hfgn.html
Ava Mar, 8, played with a wooden train set at the Play Store in Palo Alto, Calif., on Dec. 22, 2008. Worries over lead paint in mass-market toys made the holidays a little brighter for handcrafted toy makers last year, but now the federal government's response to the scare has some workshops fearful that this Christmas might be their last.
Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP
A new law hurts small toy stores and toymakers
New regulations banning harmful chemicals in children's items has had unintended consequences for small businesses and crafters.
By Yvonne Zipp Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
posted January 9, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. EST
Amy Turn Sharp started making toys because of Thomas the Tank Engine. The 2007 recall of wooden trains with lead paint inspired Ms. Turn Sharp and her husband, a master carpenter, to start making wooden toys for babies.
"It's really just Joseph and me in our backyard. No machinery, no workers," says Turn Sharp, whose toymaking business, Little Alouette, makes it feasible for her to stay home with her two children. (Making toys is a family affair: Their 4-1/2 year-old son likes to help rub organic flaxseed into the finished wood teethers, blocks, and trains.) The Worthington, Ohio, couple make all their products from maple, felled by a neighboring farmer. "It's just us producing things by hand."
But now fallout from the recall that got them started and others may very well close them down. "We started our company because of Thomas the Tank Engine. We were sick of unsafe toys," says Turn Sharp. "And here we are, and we're going to go out of business because of unsafe toys."
After the recall of millions of toys manufactured in China in 2007, Congress passed the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) last year to protect children from lead and phthalates. Under the new guidelines, which are set to take effect Feb. 10, any product manufactured for children under 12 must undergo third-party testing for certification.
The law isn't just for toys, stress critics, who say it is too sweeping and will unfairly impact small businesses. Clothing, backpacks, bicycles, books, science equipment – anything intended for a child under 12 is affected. They argue that the law, however well-intentioned, has the potential to cause thousands of small US businesses to close at a time when unemployment is surging and the country is entering its second year of recession.
"Once again, here's a situation where it's the small business that suffers the most," says Kathryn Howard, an environmental and consumer expert with the New York State Pollution Prevention Institute at Rochester Institute of Technology. "Mattel can easily afford to test every one of their Barbie dolls. The smaller guys are the ones that manufacture in the US – as opposed to China and other parts of the world.
"I see the environmental benefit," she says. But she suggests that the government explore ways to make the testing more affordable for small companies and phase it in over a longer period of time.
Testing costs can start from $400 to $500 and run into thousands of dollars, according to some estimates, depending on the complexity of the item. Each unique product has to be tested – meaning that small, medium, and large shirts must be tested individually. In a line of stuffed toys birds, for example, the chickadee, robin, and eagle all need a separate test.
The prospective bill is causing sticker shock and cries of outrage from small US-based artisans and manufacturers, independent toy shops, and baby boutique stores.
"We need an outcry from consumers: 'Wait we asked for safe toys, we didn't ask you to put the industry out of business,' " says Kathleen McHugh, president of American Specialty Toy Retailing Association in Chicago, which has 1,000 members.
She says that independent toy stores have two alternatives, neither of them good: They can have all their products tested or throw all their untested inventory out. Either scenario would put them out of business, she says.
That indeed is the scenario facing Debbie Baillie's Rowdy Rascals toy store in Snohomish, Wash. "I cannot afford to get rid of my inventory and get in new [before Feb. 10]. I will go bankrupt. ... We have just over a month to get in compliance, and I don't know how to do that," says Ms. Baillie, who explains that her family can't afford to have the store fail. Her parents took out equity in their home so she could open the store, and her sister is her partner. If Rowdy Rascals shop goes go under, her entire family will be in financial trouble.
Baillie opened the store because she wanted to create a place for the community. "I wanted to be that old toy-store lady who knew all the kids and their kids. To see it crushed by something like this, it just breaks my heart."
"The commission is working to determine if there is any flexibility in the law for small businesses," says Patty Davis, spokeswoman for the CPSC. It is considering exemptions for electronics and other specific product categories. They may include products where the amounts of lead naturally falls below the limits. Lead, for example, is not found in cotton, wool, or wood.
But, says Julie Vallese, director of public affairs for the CPSC, "The agency has the authority to enforce the law, not change the law. Congress wrote a very specific, one-size fits all piece of legislation.... Because Congress wrote the law in a very specific way, relief may only be able to come from Congress."
Another sector of the economy, thrift and consignment shops, who had been among the most vocal about the economic hardship the new testing requirements would cause, received relief Thursday. The CPSC ruled that they would not have to test the items on their shelves – although the CPSC says owners still need to be confident that items for sale meet the new safety requirements.
That's good news for owners of children's consignment shops, such as Carol Vaporis, owner of Duck Duck Goose in Newport Richey, Fla., who had said that testing would have meant she had to close her doors.
It's also good news for lower-income families, many of whom rely on consignment and thrift stores to clothe their children.
The implications for parents aren't only economic. If the law isn't changed, Ms. Howard says that parents are also going to find fewer toys for children not made by the giants of the industry, and those that are available from smaller manufacturers will likely be more expensive, to help offset the costs of testing.
"You now have an even bigger gap between the toys the rich kids play with and the toys the not-so-rich kids play with," she says. "Now your kids are forced to play with toys that are not the best – maybe they just barely meet the criteria."
Howard also suggests that perhaps the age limit in the law should be rethought. "The reasoning behind the law is to protect young children. Twelve-year-old kids aren't putting things in their mouths. If a kid is old enough to ride a bike, they're old enough not to be chewing on it."
Back in Ohio, the Turn Sharps are unsure how to proceed. Little Alouette had a booming holiday season. "We made so many toys, Joseph had blisters on his hands," Turn Sharp says.
But their business is so small, they simply can't afford the mandatory lead testing required under the new guidelines, she says. "This law was intended for the big, big boys."
"I don't know what I'll be making on Feb. 10," says Turn Sharp. "I don't know that I'll be making anything."
But she's not giving up. "I'm pretty hopeful that government will have to take a look around. Hopefully, they'll say, 'We don't want to destroy people's livelihood.' "
Still, she adds, "If you need any baby gifts, buy them before Feb. 10."
The View from US PIRG (Get Ready to Feel Dizzy)
My friend Eric Husman sends the following link for everyone on blood pressure medicine: http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/01/cpsc_to_issue_r.html. This is what it says:
January 08, 2009
CPSC to issue release today on lead rules
UPDATE: THE CPSC RELEASE: Excerpt:
Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards. The new safety law does not require resellers to test children’s products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold.
ORIGINAL POST: The CPSC is expected to issue a release today in response to a growing number of complaints from small toymakers and second-hand and consignment stores that it has failed to explain how to comply with new limits on lead in toys and children's products that take effect on 10 February. Yesterday, U.S. PIRG and other leading groups sent a letter to the CPSC demanding clarification. Austin American-Statesman story today. NBC17 (Durham, NC) with video. Los Angeles Times story. Our previous blog. While some elements of the toy industry campaign appear responsible and seeking clarification, some opponents of the important new law are using hysteria to rev up the issue, referring to 10 February as "National Bankruptcy Day" and the need to stop the new "supercharged" CPSC's "toy police." Excerpt from our consumer letter:
The vacuum of implementation information, as well as the proliferation of misinformation regarding actual testing requirements and the cost of testing is leading to confusion and fear. The public counts on the CPSC to protect them from dangerous products. Now CPSC must take the initiative to allay their fears by providing prompt, common-sense, and explicit interpretations regarding exemptions to CPSIA stipulations, guidance as to the realistic cost of testing, and education regarding compliance with the CPSIA for retailers, including thrift and consignment stores.
Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at January 8, 2009 09:05 AM
And perhaps because I have lost my mind, I posted the following reply. It may not be published because at the public interest group US PIRG, they preview comments to prevent anything "malicious" from being published. Maybe that's why there are no comments up yet . . . . You can be the judge of my "maliciousness":
"I find your approach fascinating. You want the CPSC to provide "common sense" interpretations of this law, in this case to allay the fears of thrift stores and second-hand shops and charities. Great idea! Now comes the hard part - using "common sense". The law you support so vigorously is apparently written to apply its new lead standards retroactively. Congratulations to you for this groundbreaking achievement (makes me nostalgic for the Prohibition) - now how is "common sense" supposed to guide the CPSC in reconciling this law with the legitimate concerns of second-hand merchants???
Let's see, the law says products made before February 10 are subject to these new, retroactive (and over-reaching) new rules on lead. The thrift shops need to have a "reasonable basis" for their belief that the goods are in compliance with the new standards. Does "common sense" mean that these stores should resort to guessing? They certainly can't afford to test every single thing they sell. If guesing works, boy, am I happy! That would be mean we can guess, too - maybe we'll throw away our $50,000 XRF gun now. Oh darn, I guess we can't do that, because the CPSC says that if anyone actually sells something that violates the standards, they will throw the book at 'em. I see a conflict here . . . .
I wish I had your powers of common sense so I could sort this out. I am so pleased with your leadership in instructing the CPSC to figure this out because I certainly can't and apparently you can't either. No doubt they will . . . .
Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
rwoldenberg@learningresources.com"
January 08, 2009
CPSC to issue release today on lead rules
UPDATE: THE CPSC RELEASE: Excerpt:
Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards. The new safety law does not require resellers to test children’s products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold.
ORIGINAL POST: The CPSC is expected to issue a release today in response to a growing number of complaints from small toymakers and second-hand and consignment stores that it has failed to explain how to comply with new limits on lead in toys and children's products that take effect on 10 February. Yesterday, U.S. PIRG and other leading groups sent a letter to the CPSC demanding clarification. Austin American-Statesman story today. NBC17 (Durham, NC) with video. Los Angeles Times story. Our previous blog. While some elements of the toy industry campaign appear responsible and seeking clarification, some opponents of the important new law are using hysteria to rev up the issue, referring to 10 February as "National Bankruptcy Day" and the need to stop the new "supercharged" CPSC's "toy police." Excerpt from our consumer letter:
The vacuum of implementation information, as well as the proliferation of misinformation regarding actual testing requirements and the cost of testing is leading to confusion and fear. The public counts on the CPSC to protect them from dangerous products. Now CPSC must take the initiative to allay their fears by providing prompt, common-sense, and explicit interpretations regarding exemptions to CPSIA stipulations, guidance as to the realistic cost of testing, and education regarding compliance with the CPSIA for retailers, including thrift and consignment stores.
Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at January 8, 2009 09:05 AM
And perhaps because I have lost my mind, I posted the following reply. It may not be published because at the public interest group US PIRG, they preview comments to prevent anything "malicious" from being published. Maybe that's why there are no comments up yet . . . . You can be the judge of my "maliciousness":
"I find your approach fascinating. You want the CPSC to provide "common sense" interpretations of this law, in this case to allay the fears of thrift stores and second-hand shops and charities. Great idea! Now comes the hard part - using "common sense". The law you support so vigorously is apparently written to apply its new lead standards retroactively. Congratulations to you for this groundbreaking achievement (makes me nostalgic for the Prohibition) - now how is "common sense" supposed to guide the CPSC in reconciling this law with the legitimate concerns of second-hand merchants???
Let's see, the law says products made before February 10 are subject to these new, retroactive (and over-reaching) new rules on lead. The thrift shops need to have a "reasonable basis" for their belief that the goods are in compliance with the new standards. Does "common sense" mean that these stores should resort to guessing? They certainly can't afford to test every single thing they sell. If guesing works, boy, am I happy! That would be mean we can guess, too - maybe we'll throw away our $50,000 XRF gun now. Oh darn, I guess we can't do that, because the CPSC says that if anyone actually sells something that violates the standards, they will throw the book at 'em. I see a conflict here . . . .
I wish I had your powers of common sense so I could sort this out. I am so pleased with your leadership in instructing the CPSC to figure this out because I certainly can't and apparently you can't either. No doubt they will . . . .
Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
rwoldenberg@learningresources.com"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
