John, when I looked that site over, there were then some things in it that triggered my alarms. (Mostly about foreign companies.) They are gone, but I still wonder—who’s paying the bills?

Raven, I appreciate your skepticism. I really do. But bills? We don’t have lobbyists. We don’t have laywers. We just have our very loud voices and ability to utilize social networking, pick up the phone to call our congress people, smarts to write press releases, and drive to stay in businesses. That’s what we’ve got. As for out of pocket expenses, I can speak for myself and tell you that I’ve put my very own money into signing up for online press release services. Apparently, the folks behind Change.org are going to help us get the word out, and we are grateful for it, but there are no “bill payers” besides us.

Second, there have been longer and more descriptive comments on the “it’s only $50 to test” assertion, but let me just say this: the PIRG research is grossly faulty. I’m not sure how you guys got your numbers, but I’m going to guess you had some college interns cold calling labs and asking the wrong questions. Our figures of $150-$4,000 come from actual estimates. Not only estimates, bills. Meaning, cash we’ve pulled out of our pockets to test products that are safe already.

And my final point: no one at the Handmade Toy Alliance opposes lead or pthalate limits in toys or children’s products. It is a GOOD thing. What we want is a reasonable testing prescription that won’t put us out of business. It’s called “component testing”, and that means that the materials used prior to production are certified safe. Otherwise, the CPSIA will, in fact, put alot of small businesses out of business.

We have many, many other suggestions for how to amend the law, and anyone who wishes is welcome to come over to http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org and check out our non-baby killing ideas.

Thanks.

Another correction I would make- one child did die. This is a horrible tragedy and my heart aches for his mother, but his situation makes a good case for regulating imported children’s jewelry, especially from China, not locally made blankets and sweaters and products for 11 year olds. It also was an unusual series of tragic, but atypical circumstances that resulted in his death.
He was four, and according to some reports had developmental delays. While the family was visiting friends, he swallowed a charm belonging to another child- his mother did not know. He grew sick, and eventually entered the hospital where the first set of x-rays did not bring that charm to the attention of the medical staff. He grew sicker, and nothing they tried worked. He grew sicker, and additional x-rays finally indicated the charm was a foreign object. They removed it and it was nearly solid lead, but it was too late for the poor child.
This is horrible, but it is not a sound basis for requiring expensive third party lead testing of every single component of every single item intended for the use of children 12 and under, and even more expensive phthalate testing of toys for 12 year olds and toys, pajamas, binkies, blankets, and bibs for the 3 and under crowd.

This is for products which contain no actual lead—it’s just for lack of a piece of paper. The paper (or lack thereof) does not in any way affect the safety of the product. Children are not poisoned by a product that lacks a document, yet not poisoned by that same product if it does possess the document.

The CPSC stay doesn’t matter at all if our customers won’t buy because the underlying problem with the law is not addressed.

Even products with zero lead content are not selling today because we do not yet have the 3rd-party laboratory test certificate. The certificate is not yet required, the product (because of the raw materials from which it is made) is essentially guaranteed not to contain any lead at all, and the elementary school students who use the product are well past the age where children explore the world orally.

Yet in anticipation of regulations which take effect next August, our customers were not buying our products in January. The timetable and delayed requirement of 3rd-party testing even of products which contain zero detectable lead is moot—in actual practice, the August requirements are in effect today in many markets.

Even with a stay, the law as written does not improve product safety for children. All it does is provide legislators with a “feel-good” hit item so they can show that they did something—never mind that what they did had no good effect.

The claim is often made that this law protects our children from imported toys. It does exactly the opposite. High quality safe toys made in the US by US companies are being driven from the market because of the unaffordable cost of unneeded testing. Consumers simply won’t pay what it will cost to test under the law as currently written. Only the big companies (Mattel, Hasbro, Fisher-Price) whose toys are mostly made in China in huge batches can afford the testing.

Someone please explain to me what country we are living in? This is not the America that I thought we were in.

Have a look at what the Boston Phoenix, no Forbes or Businessweek, has to say about the law and the damage it has already done, five days before it goes into effect:

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/76302-Congresss-war-on-toys/

I can definitively shoot down the claim of $50 testing costs – unless as noted above it is for one substrate or one surface coating. The lowest testing prices are available in Asia, but here in the US that $50 price is about the bottom of the barrel for testing costs. Testing for lead in paints will in general run around $75 per color, substrate testing will probably be more in the range of $125 per substrate, and phthalate testing is even more expensive at upwards of $200 per material here in the US. So put together a product with 5 different substrates, 4 colors of paint and 6 components that are subject to phthalate testing and the math shows a price quite higher than $50.

And this is by no means gouging on the laboratories parts. The wet chemistry required to perform this testing is time and labor intensive, and the equipment required to perform the actual analysis is quite expensive.

You would think being in the testing biz that I should be arguing for this legislation as hard as I can, but it lacks much in the way of common sense as noted in many cases above. When the law was first passed, I had clients coming at me from day one asking about how it would affect them, and I couldn’t give them answers except for the blanket “be safe, test everything”. Right from the start I knew this was a “feel good” law that everyone could point to and say, “see, we’re saving all the children”. But the reality has become much harsher. While I am all in favor of safe products, it has to be done in a reasonable manner that best benefits everyone.

One thing that should be pointed out is not that all untested product will become a “banned hazardous substance” as of Feb. 10. The law states (trimmed a bit for readability): “Except as expressly provided in subsection (b) beginning on the dates provided in paragraph (2), any children’s product …. that contains more lead than the limit established by paragraph (2) shall be treated as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.” So the only “banned hazardous substances” are the products that actually contain lead in excess of the specified limits. The problem of course is that you can’t prove an untested product doesn’t have lead in it, so many retailers are choosing to not carry or sell inventory that has not been tested. This in essence does consign these toys to the trash heap, but they are not “banned hazardous substances” by the definition of the law.

I disagree. The general policy of the new law treats the belongings (clothing, bedding, toys, equipment, books, school supplies and dishes) of 12 year olds as though they posed exactly the same threat as the clothing bedding, toys, etc of one year olds. 12 year olds do not typically suck on their socks, so why are socks subject to expensive and redundant lead testing?
The CPSIA isn’t just about lead in toys, or even toys children are likely to mouth. It’s about mandatory, expensive, and redundant testing for ALL possible, and sometimes impossible and merely pretended, lead in ALL products for children 12 and under-
12 year olds do not typically chew their bike tires or lick their microscopes, so why are these items subject to EXACTLY the same expensive and redundant testing as a block intended for a one year old? It makes no sense.

Much of the misinformation out there has been coming from US PIRG, Public Citizen, and other special interest groups allegedly devoted to the interests of consumers. Well, not this consumer. THIS consumer has a handicapped child who is hard to fit, and I have bought home-made clothes from seamstresses who sew them to fit her using fastenings she can manage (elastic and velcro, basically). The CPSIA makes those transactions a felony. Gee, thanks.

This law treats toys from China (the source of nearly all the lead scares) the same as it does books printed in America- that is THE LAW, as written, does this, not the CPSC.

You can talk about exemptions the CPSC could have or should have made, but the fact is, they could only legally make those exemptions under incredibly draconian conditions.
For example, the bill explicitly contemplates exemptions being made, not just on a case-by-case basis but on a blanket level for e.g. safe, handmade materials and products.
Um, not quite. In fact, I would say this is misleading. The law outlines very rigidly the conditions the CPSC must meet in order to exempt a product.
Congress specified that the CPSC could only exempt products “on the basis of the best-available, objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence” that neither the item not any of its components could lead to the absorption of lead in a human being. They cannot legally apply common sense and say, “Well, everybody knows books don’t have lead, so books are exempt. EVERYBODY (but Congress and PIRG, apparently) knows that textiles don’t have lead, so let’s exempt them.”

They HAVE to request and then examine the evidence, the best-available, objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence’ that these things are so before they can issue exemptions. And nobody told the book publishers they were subject to a law the press (and PIRG) trumpeted as a TOY law, so they haven’t had time to run those tests to Congressional specifications. It would make much more sense for Congress to have only INCLUDED those products that the best available, objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence indicated were at risk for lead and phthalates.
It takes more than six months to listen to this evidence for every single product that deserves to be exempt from this law.

They also haven’t done any real outreach—they can and should be getting important information out about how they’re planning on enforcing the law, how and where to get products tested and how much it costs (our research has shown the price is around $50), and so on.

Let’s discuss misinformation again, shall we? Because this fifty dollar quote? I see it everywhere from you guys- and I happen to know that MANY people have received legitimate estimates for testing their products from the licensed testing companies and sent them to PIRG to demonstrate the monstrous discrepancy between your quote and reality.
And although PIRG’s people have often been asked, I notice that none of PIRG’s reps EVER explain where they got this quote, while those pointing out it is much, much more expensive than this are quite willing to pony up and show the data. Why would that be?Here are some of the people who have sent PIRG facts and figures and asked for a source for the fifty dollar testing (PIRG never answers. They’ve posted them for the public to see. So why don’t you do the same? Give us the names and contact information for these fifty dollar quotes to prove that PIRG has actually done this research.

This bill was passed about six months ago, after months and months of hearings, studies, and reports—PIRG has been working on getting a law like this passed for literally decades. It’s not like the requirements were a come-out-of-nowhere surprise.

Actually, it’s exactly like the requirements were a come out of nowhere surprise. And it’s interesting you say PIRG has been working on it for years, since all their publicity and Congress’ as well says this was actually in response to the lead toy scares in 2007. are you telling me that Congress and PIRG have been lying to me when they explain that this bill is in response to those 2007 toy recalls?

There was very little publicity, except some misleading and deceptive and erroneous stuff about a TOY bill, in response to lead toys from China. Makers of hand-made crafts, clothes, and bed linens from products that did not come from China had no reason to assume a toy bill about lead toys from China concerned them as manufacturers of safe products. Nor were small crafters and microbusinesses invited to testify.

Finally, while the public and media concern has all been (understandably) about small businesses, it’s interesting to note that the CPSC took action after being petitioned by the National Association of Manufacturers, which is made up of the biggest producers in the country.

I do not find it interesting. I find it irrelevant- the concerns publicized by small businesses are no less relevant because NAM also dislikes the bill. I find this tactic smacks of redirection and is dismissive of those legitimate concerns expressed by parents, crafters, small businesses, librarians, and more. You could also just as honesty and accurately say they took this action after being petitioned by the ALA or by several crafting groups which also submitted petitions last week, or after got out that Senator DeMint was going to be proposing a CPSIA reform bill.

As it stands, the current one year moratorium flies in the face of the intent of Congress,
Many of the actual results of the bill fly in the face of the expressed intent of the bill. Obviously Congress should have crafted a more precise bill.
This gives them time to act.

ensuring that we’ll have one more holiday season with toys judged by law to be unsafe still on store shelves.

I think it’s very important to note on what basis these toys are ‘unsafe’- as you tacitly acknowledge, they are not inherently unsafe, they are only unsafe by legal technicality.

I think it is also important to note that you just switched the discussion back to toys, demonstrating why so many people were blindsided by this bill. PIRG told us, and still tells us, it’s about toys. This bill is about far, far more than toys- which is one of the many problems with it. This sweeping mess of a bill is about ALL products intended for the use of children 12 and under- DVDs, CDS, music boxes, books, shoes, socks, ribbons, hats, helmets, athletic equipment, games, cards, magazines, underwear, school supplies, furniture, linens, and on, and on, and on.

And toys ‘judged by’ an impractical, poorly written, unscientific ‘law to be unsafe’ are not actually unsafe just because an artificial legal deadline has passed. My son’s size 7 tennis shoes (he is ten) would not be dangerous if they had lead levels of 700 PPM, regardless of the law’s assertion otherwise. He does not chew, suck, or otherwise ingest or inhale his shoes. Baby booties made with yarn from New Zealand are not actually dangerously likely to contain lead just because they have not been subjected to redundant and expensive testing. The books in the children’s section of the library are not dangerous, regardless of the legal redefining of all untested products as dangerous and hazardous.
My 12 year old daughter’s skirt is not actually dangerous just because it hasn’t been tested.
I would prefer that the CPSC (and Congress) focus on things that are actually dangerous, not merely dangerous by a foolish and poorly thought out legal technicality.

The primary beneficiaries of this blanket exemption will be the big manufacturers.

This claim appears to me to be absurd and groundless. The big manufacturers knew about this bill six months ago and have had time to put into place mechanisms to respond to the requirments. Some of them have reduced their product line, others had already stepped up testing before the law passed, they have the deeper pockets and the lawyers paid to keep an eye things to enable them to predict the legal tornado PIRG, other special interest groups, and Congress created and find shelters.
Not so the small businesses, crafters, booksellers, clothing manufacturers, and others who had no idea they were included in this legislation until it was very nearly too late. In fact, several have already closed their shops. This stay is a last-minute stay of execution for many micro-businesses that expected to close by February tenth.

The current head of the CPSC, Nancy Nord, is a Bush appointee who’s been resistant to reform, even arguing at a Congressional hearing that she didn’t think her agency needed any more money or resources (this, at a time when the agency had only a single person assigned to test toys for safety!)

Could you provide a link to that hearing transcript? Because elswhere I have seen her argue that she does want more resources, precisely for testing, and her objection to the bill is precisely that it hinders this mission.
Here is what she said on the Today Show in October or early November of ‘07:
“NORD: I want to be hiring more safety inspectors and scientists and compliance officers. I don’t want to be hiring lawyers. I want some feet on the ground. I want people at the ports. I want people inspecting products. I don’t want to send—use our resources to send lawyers into court litigating, and that’s my concern with the legislation.”
It is perhaps coincidental that so many PIRG associates are lawers, is it not?

another issue is how does one submit a One Of a Kind item (batch of ONE item) for destructive testing and have anything left to sell? How does an item made from wool & cotton have lead in it to begin with? The only choice for those producers, is get the testing and not have any product, or don’t do the required testing and have NO product.

PIRG has never had to run a business and doesn’t seem to have a clue how things work in the real world. You keep quoting that $50 testing. I think a lot of businesses would LOVE to know your source so they could give them more business. If you think you can test something for $50 it would seem you are getting quotes for a toy with one part and one material. It doesn’t work that way as I am sure you are aware after many people have told you. That would be $50 per component/material for 3rd party testing. Not going to work for small runs or one of kind things or print-on-demand.

This law is really like telling someone they have to pay $5000 to prove they are coming to work every day or else they will be fired.

The CPSC is understaffed and has many other laws to oversee. There was no for them to hold meetings on scientific findings and offer guidelines for everyone in the time they had while also taking care of other laws and many recalls.

They can’t accredit new labs because CPSC hasn’t come up with the standards for accreditation yet—and that’s not their fault or any Republican’s fault except the ones who voted for this turkey of a law. Congress knew darn well that CPSC has a months-long process they have to go through to declare new rules, but they gave them only six months in which to do it, while at the same time they had to make rules for two other new laws, and had no increase in funding to get new staff to help them make all these rules. CPSC has met every deadline Congress gave them, but they can’t help it if what Congress asks of them is literally impossible to carry out.

Imagine if you went to your new job and your boss told you that you had to turn a room full of metal scraps into delicious food by tomorrow morning or you’d be fired, and you came home and complained to your partner about it, only to have him/her say to you “Well you should have seen THAT coming, people get hungry and need food you know.” That’s how small and micro-businesses feel about CPSIA and the opinions of the consumer groups like CALPIRG who keep insisting that these restrictions are reasonable and we should have seen them coming. It’s just surreal.

Site works just fine for me.

I believe it’s the new LibertarianSlower2009™ technology. Allows them to say mean things about Ron Paul (for instance) without overloading the moderators or imposing actual censorship, since you all can only type so fast.

On the serious side, I actually do notice a slowdown in response here, just nowhere near as radical as Brett describes.