Here's My Limerick:
There once was a lead law called CPSIA
It caught all of us in it's GripSIA
Old toys and books now are banned
No used clothing in this land
That have buttons or snaps or ZipSIAs
And some Haiku:
C P S I A
Chilling legislation for
Kids biz large and small
C'mon folks. You can do better than I did. Give it a try.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Dr. Seuss was prescient!
So I officially started my pre-1985 children's book collection today. I went to gather these 'banned hazardous materials' from my store shelves and fell in love. When I opened the cover to this 1965 Fox In Socks book, I hit the floor laughing. Turns out that Dr. Seuss was prescient and foresaw this whole CPSIA thing. To view my entire collection of a dozen books so far, click here.
Dr. Seuss Meets the CPSIA
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
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
Thursday, February 12, 2009
So this is all making kids safer?
Safety Act Puts Kid ATVs, Motorbikes in Storage
$100,000,000 worth of them.
Safety Law Doesn't Mean Alls Well in Toyland
"While the phthalate ban was hailed as a victory for children's health, it's no guarantee that the products are safe.
That's because companies currently aren't required to publicly disclose the chemicals they use in place of phthalates — and little is known about the health effects of one of the most widely used alternatives."
Anyone remember the answer to flammability standards in kids pajamas? Tris. Yes, Tris - later found to be a cancer causing agent. Deja Vu Anyone?
$100,000,000 worth of them.
Safety Law Doesn't Mean Alls Well in Toyland
"While the phthalate ban was hailed as a victory for children's health, it's no guarantee that the products are safe.
That's because companies currently aren't required to publicly disclose the chemicals they use in place of phthalates — and little is known about the health effects of one of the most widely used alternatives."
Anyone remember the answer to flammability standards in kids pajamas? Tris. Yes, Tris - later found to be a cancer causing agent. Deja Vu Anyone?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Forgotten Small Business Laws
MUST READ ARTICLES
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
These laws are designed to protect small business from burdensome and unfair regulatory action. Read them carefully and see how much this whole CPSIA mess is contradictory to the intent of these laws. It's hard to select just a quote from them because the entire text is relevant but here's an easy one:
IN GENERAL.--For each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis under section 605(b) of title 5, United States Code, the agency shall publish 1 or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall entitle such publications 'small entity compliance guides'.
(2) PUBLICATION OF GUIDES.--The publication of each guide under this subsection shall include--
(A) the posting of the guide in an easily identified location on the website of the agency; and
(B) distribution of the guide to known industry contacts, such as small entities, associations, or industry leaders affected by the rule.
(3) PUBLICATION DATE.--An agency shall publish each guide (including the posting and distribution of the guide as described under paragraph (2))--
(A) on the same date as the date of publication of the final rule (or as soon as possible after that date); and
(B) not later than the date on which the requirements of that rule become effective.
---------------
So, the posting of the guide on THE DAY the law took effect did not even come close to meeting the requirements of distribution of the guide. That alone should be grounds for delaying the effects on small business. The fact that the phthalate ban became retroactive just a few DAYS before the implementation is contrary to any remotely reasonable approach. The CPSC should not be able to be overturned by a state court.
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
These laws are designed to protect small business from burdensome and unfair regulatory action. Read them carefully and see how much this whole CPSIA mess is contradictory to the intent of these laws. It's hard to select just a quote from them because the entire text is relevant but here's an easy one:
IN GENERAL.--For each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis under section 605(b) of title 5, United States Code, the agency shall publish 1 or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall entitle such publications 'small entity compliance guides'.
(2) PUBLICATION OF GUIDES.--The publication of each guide under this subsection shall include--
(A) the posting of the guide in an easily identified location on the website of the agency; and
(B) distribution of the guide to known industry contacts, such as small entities, associations, or industry leaders affected by the rule.
(3) PUBLICATION DATE.--An agency shall publish each guide (including the posting and distribution of the guide as described under paragraph (2))--
(A) on the same date as the date of publication of the final rule (or as soon as possible after that date); and
(B) not later than the date on which the requirements of that rule become effective.
---------------
So, the posting of the guide on THE DAY the law took effect did not even come close to meeting the requirements of distribution of the guide. That alone should be grounds for delaying the effects on small business. The fact that the phthalate ban became retroactive just a few DAYS before the implementation is contrary to any remotely reasonable approach. The CPSC should not be able to be overturned by a state court.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Five Favorite Things Affected By CPSIA
1) the grandmother who comes into my store and tells me that without my resale store, she would not be able to afford to buy anything for her grandchildren
2) the smiles on kids faces as they uncover their 'treasure' because their mom can say 'go find something' from my store shelves because she knows it won't cost that much
3) getting up each morning looking forward to the privilege of meeting all the great people who come into my store ranging from the environmentalist, to the frugal, to the under-employed, to the poor, to the just plain practical
4) selfishly, the satisfaction I get from providing a community service to those who want to sell their great kids things and those who want to buy them
5) all the choices that are being taken away by the government. In America I have come to expect to have the freedom to choose those things that I enjoy, be it a ride on a roller coaster, a piece of chocolate, or a handmade hairbow for my daughter. I don't want to live my life in a bubble. I don't feel so good about the government taking away my right to choose.
2) the smiles on kids faces as they uncover their 'treasure' because their mom can say 'go find something' from my store shelves because she knows it won't cost that much
3) getting up each morning looking forward to the privilege of meeting all the great people who come into my store ranging from the environmentalist, to the frugal, to the under-employed, to the poor, to the just plain practical
4) selfishly, the satisfaction I get from providing a community service to those who want to sell their great kids things and those who want to buy them
5) all the choices that are being taken away by the government. In America I have come to expect to have the freedom to choose those things that I enjoy, be it a ride on a roller coaster, a piece of chocolate, or a handmade hairbow for my daughter. I don't want to live my life in a bubble. I don't feel so good about the government taking away my right to choose.
CPSIA for Dummies?
Hey, some great news. I was told to expect a 40-50 page document (aka CPSIA for Dummies?) from my friends at the CPSC by Monday (or Tuesday morning at the very latest) that will explain in excruciating detail everything that resale stores need to do to be in compliance with CPSIA. Nothing like being prepared! I may have a whole hour or two to digest this sure-to-be clear and concise document, review each of the 20,000 some items in my store and take the appropriate action for each one and still open for business at 10:00 am. Stay tuned - I'll be sure to link to this beauty as soon as I get it! Prepare for some simply outrageous commentary!
UPDATE: Seriously, this is it?
So all I need to do, then, is avoid selling all toys, jewelry, and clothing that has snaps, zippers or other closures. Alrighty then.
Nope, that wasn't it. Stay tuned, the sequel will be issued any day now ...
UPDATE: Seriously, this is it?
So all I need to do, then, is avoid selling all toys, jewelry, and clothing that has snaps, zippers or other closures. Alrighty then.
Nope, that wasn't it. Stay tuned, the sequel will be issued any day now ...
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Ban on Phthalates now retroactive
LA Times
Great. Four days before implementation and now entire categories of children's items must now be discarded. There is no test for phthalates like the XRF gun for lead so no way to know.
Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal press release If you think states Attorney General's offices will respect CPSC opinions, then read this.
Opinion piece on Blumenthal's press release
Great. Four days before implementation and now entire categories of children's items must now be discarded. There is no test for phthalates like the XRF gun for lead so no way to know.
Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal press release If you think states Attorney General's offices will respect CPSC opinions, then read this.
Opinion piece on Blumenthal's press release
Salvation Army
Salvation Army store in Richmond, IN stops taking children's products
In this article, they claim to have made this decision because they "care more about children's safety than exemption". Must be a coincidence then that this decision was made just a few days before CPSIA implementation. They were clearly avoiding the work involved with wading through the CPSIA mess and the liability that now results from it. Being concerned about children's safety does not include preventing access to affordable secondhand items, over 95% of which are 100% safe.
In this article, they claim to have made this decision because they "care more about children's safety than exemption". Must be a coincidence then that this decision was made just a few days before CPSIA implementation. They were clearly avoiding the work involved with wading through the CPSIA mess and the liability that now results from it. Being concerned about children's safety does not include preventing access to affordable secondhand items, over 95% of which are 100% safe.
Weekly CPSC CPSIA Missive
CPSC Enforcement Policy Announcement
Well, a few materials are now 'exempt'. Cotton, wool, wood, certain dyed and undyed textiles. Ordinary children's books post-1985. While I don't subscribe to Waxman's assertions that the CPSC is entirely to blame, this should have come out a week after the law was signed.
Well, a few materials are now 'exempt'. Cotton, wool, wood, certain dyed and undyed textiles. Ordinary children's books post-1985. While I don't subscribe to Waxman's assertions that the CPSC is entirely to blame, this should have come out a week after the law was signed.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
USA Today article
USA Today on CPSIA
Finally getting accurate major media coverage.
USA Today on CPSIA part II
Well, maybe not entirely accurate. In this follow up, they say "The commission also tried to ease the worries of thrift store owners who sell children's clothes. The agency said it won't prosecute anyone for distributing or selling most clothes, such as T-shirts and baby blankets."
Excuse me for mentioning that only, say tshirts and socks, are made entirely of exempt fabric. That would certainly not constitute 'most' clothes. And blankets are still subject to phthalate testing. And the release did not say they won't prosecute, it said they GENERALLY won't prosecute. Take that to the bank.
Finally getting accurate major media coverage.
USA Today on CPSIA part II
Well, maybe not entirely accurate. In this follow up, they say "The commission also tried to ease the worries of thrift store owners who sell children's clothes. The agency said it won't prosecute anyone for distributing or selling most clothes, such as T-shirts and baby blankets."
Excuse me for mentioning that only, say tshirts and socks, are made entirely of exempt fabric. That would certainly not constitute 'most' clothes. And blankets are still subject to phthalate testing. And the release did not say they won't prosecute, it said they GENERALLY won't prosecute. Take that to the bank.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Rumblings from Washington, D.C.
Nancy Nord letter re: stay decision.
Thomas Moore letter re: stay decisio.
Thomas Moore letter to Waxman et al.
Henry Waxman et al letter to Obama.
Read these and see for yourself the lack of logic in these letters. Astounding.
Thomas Moore letter re: stay decisio.
Thomas Moore letter to Waxman et al.
Henry Waxman et al letter to Obama.
Read these and see for yourself the lack of logic in these letters. Astounding.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Proposed Stay of Enforcement from CPSC
Proposed Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirements
I'm not convinced that this does anything more than the previous 'clarification' that says resellers can sell items but they are still responsible for selling products that exceed the lead limit. This stay just puts manufacturers in the same boat. Back to innocent until proven guilty but doesn't really change the law. It does give manufacturers additional time to request exemptions and obtain GCC's so it helps the small crafters a lot - but only temporarily. Over at Etsy, they are all doing a happy dance thinking it is business as usual. They need to realize that it is nothing of the sort.
We still need Jim DeMint (senator from South Carolina - one of 3 to vote against CPSIA) to get his reforms through. In it, he starts off by requesting a six-month stay of the regulations, not just the testing. Jim DeMint's CPSIA Reform Letter
I'm not convinced that this does anything more than the previous 'clarification' that says resellers can sell items but they are still responsible for selling products that exceed the lead limit. This stay just puts manufacturers in the same boat. Back to innocent until proven guilty but doesn't really change the law. It does give manufacturers additional time to request exemptions and obtain GCC's so it helps the small crafters a lot - but only temporarily. Over at Etsy, they are all doing a happy dance thinking it is business as usual. They need to realize that it is nothing of the sort.
We still need Jim DeMint (senator from South Carolina - one of 3 to vote against CPSIA) to get his reforms through. In it, he starts off by requesting a six-month stay of the regulations, not just the testing. Jim DeMint's CPSIA Reform Letter
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Here's an idea
If we choose to buy that unlabeled cookie at the local bake sale, is that illegal? Or is that within our scope of free choice? How about the bowl of popcorn at the bar? I would not take a handful given that I do not know what is in them nor whose hands have touched them. But I don't deny others the right to do so nor is that illegal. So let's look at children's products the way we look at food products. After all, those fat, sugar and calorie laden kids foods aren't illegal. It's just that one look at the ingredient label and many people don't buy them.
First of all, let's set a reasonable age - items for children under 3 is good and is the accepted age cutoff for choking hazard warnings so why not this? Why 12 and under when the sole reason for doing so is just because those children are likely to have younger siblings? Secondly, allow common sense component testing. Then just mandate that all these items must be labeled with an 'ingredient-like' label listing the lead and phthalate levels or a label with a warning that these levels are unknown. We use food labels to determine what products we choose to eat and to offer to our children - do the same thing here. Empower us with good information on which to base our decisions. The free market will determine the success of items that are labeled with unacceptable or unknown levels.
Rather than a pass/fail type of system, a quantifiable number can be used. By identifitying the amount of the substance, it will allow for future changes in determining an acceptable level. Under the current requirements, when the lead limit falls to 300 ppm, a product deemed 'safe' under the 600 ppm law will then be 'unsafe'. Then when other substances need to be tracked they can simply be added to that 'ingredient' label. Some parents may want to choose to only buy products that are less than 100 ppm now and they should be enabled to make that decision now.
I see parents handing their children donuts and cookies to eat and heading straight for McDonalds for french fries. Do I approve? No. Would I do that with my kids? No. Do I believe in their right to make that decision? Yes. Because many decisions are not that simple and government cannot dictate at that level, even if we all agreed. In Illinois I can legally put my child on a motorcycle without a helmet. A parent can take their child to a monster truck show and risk a part being propelled through the air and killing that child. A parent can get a pet Rottweiler who ultimately turns vicious and kills the child. A parent can give their child a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and that child can die from salmonella poisoning. A parent can give their child a taco and the child can die from bacteria in the tomatoes - oops I mean the lettuce. And therein lies my point. No one can provide 100% safety for themselves or their children. The best we can do is get good information and improve the odds. And it is up to each of us to determine the level of risk that we are willing to take. I admire those that actively seek out safer foods, cleaning products, beauty products, medicines and drugs. I am trying to become more aware and make better choices. It is my right to choose to do that or to not do that. And if I choose to buy that unlabeled cookie at the bake sale or the unlabeled hair bow for my child's hair, I strongly believe that is my choice to make. All I ask is for the information to be available to make an intelligent decision. And if it is not made available, it remains my choice whether or not to purchase the product.
So what is unworkable about this idea? Seems fair to me.
First of all, let's set a reasonable age - items for children under 3 is good and is the accepted age cutoff for choking hazard warnings so why not this? Why 12 and under when the sole reason for doing so is just because those children are likely to have younger siblings? Secondly, allow common sense component testing. Then just mandate that all these items must be labeled with an 'ingredient-like' label listing the lead and phthalate levels or a label with a warning that these levels are unknown. We use food labels to determine what products we choose to eat and to offer to our children - do the same thing here. Empower us with good information on which to base our decisions. The free market will determine the success of items that are labeled with unacceptable or unknown levels.
Rather than a pass/fail type of system, a quantifiable number can be used. By identifitying the amount of the substance, it will allow for future changes in determining an acceptable level. Under the current requirements, when the lead limit falls to 300 ppm, a product deemed 'safe' under the 600 ppm law will then be 'unsafe'. Then when other substances need to be tracked they can simply be added to that 'ingredient' label. Some parents may want to choose to only buy products that are less than 100 ppm now and they should be enabled to make that decision now.
I see parents handing their children donuts and cookies to eat and heading straight for McDonalds for french fries. Do I approve? No. Would I do that with my kids? No. Do I believe in their right to make that decision? Yes. Because many decisions are not that simple and government cannot dictate at that level, even if we all agreed. In Illinois I can legally put my child on a motorcycle without a helmet. A parent can take their child to a monster truck show and risk a part being propelled through the air and killing that child. A parent can get a pet Rottweiler who ultimately turns vicious and kills the child. A parent can give their child a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and that child can die from salmonella poisoning. A parent can give their child a taco and the child can die from bacteria in the tomatoes - oops I mean the lettuce. And therein lies my point. No one can provide 100% safety for themselves or their children. The best we can do is get good information and improve the odds. And it is up to each of us to determine the level of risk that we are willing to take. I admire those that actively seek out safer foods, cleaning products, beauty products, medicines and drugs. I am trying to become more aware and make better choices. It is my right to choose to do that or to not do that. And if I choose to buy that unlabeled cookie at the bake sale or the unlabeled hair bow for my child's hair, I strongly believe that is my choice to make. All I ask is for the information to be available to make an intelligent decision. And if it is not made available, it remains my choice whether or not to purchase the product.
So what is unworkable about this idea? Seems fair to me.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
