More Absurd Developments

As usual, Walter Olson does a great roundup of the latest CPSIA craziness at CPSIA Chronicles

Lots of articles and posts regarding the removal of pre-1985 children's books from bookstore shelves.

Ballpoint pen manufacturers requesting an exemption.

There is also a new bill regarding a two-year exemption for thrift and consignment stores. Now I have a childrens consignment store so you'd think I'd be jumping for joy at this one. Well, I'm not. First of all, chasing exemptions is not what needs to happen here. Everyone needs to work together with the goal of reexamining this entire law, not just lobbying to save one industry or another. The only positive thing that I can see coming from all the requests for exemptions is simply that flooding the CPSC with these requests may make them take notice that nearly everyone has a valid claim for exemption. Which speaks to the ridiculous nature of the law.

And now the CPSC has opened up a 30-day comment period for what products should be covered by the phthalate limitations. Guess the terminology used in the law didn't make for straightforward definitions. Like, do things that facilitate sleeping include mattresses? blankets? bumper pads? Why do things that facilitate sleeping fall under the phthalate limits anyway? Is phthalate absorbed more readily when sleeping? When do babies even come into contact with a mattress? Do bibs really facilitate eating or are they just there to catch the crumbs? If you put a terrycloth shirt on your baby will that be defined as a bib? And how on earth will we figure out what to do about bottles since they fall under both the FDA and the CPSC? So what will the CPSC really do with the information they get? That remains to be seen but I suggest we all take a whack at providing some common sense. CPSC Request for Comments