CPSIA Blog-In

Whooops= Credit where credit is due update: The Blog-in was not my idea (unfortunately)- and I only just realized that several sources are crediting me. No, no- that credit belongs to ChichiBoulie, or Gretchen, at the very cute Chiboulie Blog.
She did a great job planning, organizing, and cheerleading others into blogging, and she's such a team-player and encourager that she never even said a word to me about other people crediting me for her project. Here's her introductory post to the blog-in. Thanks, Gretchen- I think your project was a big success!


Joining in the blog-in? Scroll down and add your link to the Mr. Linky Widget below!!




A number of bloggers are specifically addressing the CPSIA today in the hopes of generating some attention and making the public more aware of what's going on and what is at stake.

I thought I'd share an email I received recently when I asked for more information on the science behind the lead and phthalates ban- how were these levels reached, is there good science behind them- that sort of thing. Wacky Hermit at the Organic Baby Farm kindly explained:

Lead begins to have toxic effects at somewhere around 10 ug/dl (that u is supposed to be a mu but I don't have a mu key). This is a blood level that somewhere around 1.2% of children nationally have/exceed in 2006; this is down from 7.6% in 1997.
Stats

Absorption is key. Lead cannot be absorbed by touching; it must be ingested, breathed as dust, or enter through cuts.
Most lead exposure is through lead in house paint. Other sources are toys, home remedies, candy from Mexico, water that comes through lead pipes, and playing in contaminated soil.

CDC Data


As far as I know there is no direct correlation between lead levels in product and lead levels in blood. It all depends on how much is ingested/absorbed. If your child eats food cooked in a lead pot it's different than if your child just bangs on the pot, even though it's the same pot. Likewise 8 year old girls are at no risk from a dot of lead paint in the eye of a Barbie or a bit of lead in a paper clip. They could lick the Barbie or the paper clip with no adverse affects, at least from lead poisoning. However a small child did die from ingesting a lead charm.


To find cases of recalls linked to lead, go here and select "Lead" as the hazard. I searched through them and found only one that was not either lead paint or jewelry, and it was a screen print (another potential hazard identified by The Smart Mama).


With actual lead exposure on the decline, and with it pretty dang clear where the danger comes from (lead paint and jewelry), you'd think that the government wouldn't take drastic action, but there you go again with that "think" word! The media frenzy over a few recalls of toys with lead paint prompted Congress to "Do Something For The Children". To be fair, they really did need to set a standard for lead in jewelry and enforce the existing lead paint laws. So there was an actual hazard that needed a law. They just swatted that fly with a shotgun blast.


So, phthalates.

CDC factsheet with links.

Phthalates are plastic softening agents that are found in a lot of medical devices as well as bibs, teething toys, and other soft plastic or plasticized items, and in makeup.
More here
And here.

CPSIA, however, does not cover medical devices or cosmetics (these are under FDA jurisdiction and therefore exempt).


The anti-phthalate faction cites studies showing effects on reproductive systems in rats, and levels of phthalates found in humans. However, there just isn't any research showing that they are harmful in humans. Still, they support pre-emptive banning.

The pro-phthalate faction points out that absence of evidence of safety is not proof of harm and that if phthalates were causing actual harm, we'd see people who have been harmed by phthalates. The fact that nobody can point them out (like they can with lead) shows that logically, it makes no sense to ban phthalates. These people are promptly ignored on the grounds that they're using, like, logic and stuff when they should be caring about The Children.

My read on it is that somebody found out there's scary sounding chemicals in stuff, so she pulled on her faux-leather cruelty-free jacket, put on her makeup, flew off to Washington in her private jet, persuaded her Senator to ban scary sounding chemical stuff Just In Case For The Children, then took a long celebratory pull from her bottled water on the flight home. That, or some people are looking for a scapegoat to explain their small [whoops! Edited for a family blog]. :)

Hope this helps!

I confess I am one who has tried several times to get rid of all plastic toys (there is an evil conspiracy and they come back), who switched to drinking from jars because they weren't plastic (and were free), and who won't eat American cheese because it's wrapped in plastic- and I thought this was hilarious.

For my part, I think it is immensely interesting that our government delayed the switchover for digital television- even though this has been widely publicized for ages, the government offered free coupons to help pay for the upgrade, and it affects few livelihoods.

Meanwhile, the CPSIA is railroaded through, few people know about it, no clear answers have been forthcoming about how to comply or where, or what exemptions can be made- and yet it's moving forward with the relentless push of a bull-dozer with no brakes.

Unable to get useful answers from Congress before the February 10th deadline, this business closes its doors.

The Washington Post has an interview with Julie Vallese, formerly with the CPSC:

In terms of small business as a group, the agency under this law doesn’t have the authority to address the group but possibly product categories that may affect them. Congress on the other hand could much more easily affect the issue of small business as a group than the CPSC.

Has the CPSC asked Congress to do that?

Congress is very well aware of this consequence of the law that it passed, and whether or not it addresses the issue of small business is up to them.

Don't let Congress tell you otherwise. Contact them, do not let them fob you off on Nord, who is already grossly overworked. Congress can make substantive changes to the law. Herny Waxman needs to call that Committee meeting and issue exemptions andtechnical amendments- or scrap it all and start from scratch.
here's a CPSIA Action kit and puppet.

A Do It Yourself press release for alerting the media in your town about the CPSIA

Rick Woldenberg advises:

Write your Congressman and DEMAND that they reach out IN WRITING to Reps. Waxman and Rush, and Senators Pryor and Rockefeller, with cc's to Reps. Barton, Radanovich and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, to request urgent hearings on the serious issues raised about the CPSIA and further, to implement an immediate stay of enforcement of the law for at least six months after final implementing rules are promulgated by the CPSC. By hitting the "pause button", Congress will allow for an orderly process to consider the issues on the bill and to define the appropriate corrective action after due public debate. They need to hear from you - on the record.

The CPSC is accepting comments, indeed, soliciting them, on component testing until January 30th

EMAIL THE CPSIA - Sec102ComponentPartsTesting@cpsc.gov

Cate at Nature's Child says:

The CPSC offers a few ways for you to get your points to them. Title these comments "Section 102 Mandatory Third-Party Testing of Component Parts"

Email them at Sec102ComponentPartsTesting@cpsc.gov

Fax the Facts: (301) 504-0127

Snail mail is not just for holiday cards...really!
Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission
Room 502
4330 East-West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

This post- excellent. collection of contact info: a list of all the Senate member's phone numbers and websites on the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee

Lawrence H. Summers is the Director of the National Economic Council
and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and his office is in daily contact with the Prez.

You can call the White House at

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
And plead that Obama's new Commission members will be firendlier to small businesses than special interest groups.

Contact the Dept Commerce Business Liaison and complain about CPSIA businessliaison@doc.gov 202-482-1360

Voicemail number for Waxman/House Commerce Committee 202-225-4434- Personally, I hate making phone calls. One suggestion- write out what you want to say, and then just read it.

Update: I'm told this is a new Senate number for CPSIA calls: 202-224-5115

If you call other numbers and talk to real humans, DON'T let them tell you he has this very helpful letter up on his website addressing your concerns so it's all better now. Piffle and horsefeathers. It's the same old thing discussed before. Waxman is fobbing you off with meaningless gestures.


Contact the national ombudsman and file a complaint.

Contact Waxman- you can't email him if you're not a consituent. So email your own reps and include an email to Waxman. Ask them to pass it on to him, since whether you can vote for him or not, the decisions he's made are going to alter what you can buy, where you can buy it, how much it costs, what you can make, sell, or trade- and read.

Here's a list of the members on the Committee of Energy and Commerce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Commerce_Committee#Members.2C_111th_Congress

Why Waxman and not Nord.

How this bill turns us into a nation of informants