I work for CALPIRG, one of the groups that pushed hard for the CPSIA. With that said, this isn’t an issue I work on, and this is all personal opinion, not the official position of the organization, yada yada.
My reply (with some small editorial differences) is below. His quotes are in italics (I don't quote quite everything he said, just most of it).
So, the general policy is a good one. Unfortunately, there’s been a lot of misinformation out there, and the agency responsible for implementing the law, the CPSC, hasn’t done nearly enough to dispel that information and set out rules that will allow the new law to work.
I disagree that the general policy is good. 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 1 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- books, blankets, bikes, underwear, socks, shoes, helmets, school supplies, chalk, microscopes, rulers, cameras, laptops, CDs and DVDs, computer games, booties, mugs, stickers, colored pencils, skirts, shirts, scarves, mittens, hats, sweat pants, and more.
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. The CPSIA makes such 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, receive, and examine 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. In fact, I would say the only objects that should be covered by the law are items painted outside of the US, Canada, and most European countries, children's jewelry, and some buttons and fastenings. And then Congress needs to permit testing at the manufacturer's level, not the crafter's or small business's.
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?
Why don't you prove it? Go to Etsy and pick a product, any product, baby bootie, doll, blanket, dress, - take a picture of it and the list of materials, and go back to those testing agencies where PIRG allegedly conducted research (I do hope they were CPSC approved) and ask for quotes. Then ask your sources how willing their agency is to take on testing accounts for businesses with only about a dozen items to test.
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.
Note carefully the astounding admission made in this next paragraph:
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 very 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.
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 others. 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 a 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. By this logic, those toys that are currently 'legally safe' will be toxic hazardous waste in August when the new (300 ppm) lead limits kick in. The rattle a baby played with safely on July 30 is not toxic and poisonous the day after the new August deadline- except in the fictional world of legal mumbo-jumbo.
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 requirements. 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 in order to find shelters.
Not so the small businesses, crafters, booksellers, clothing manufacturers, onesie decorators, pillow-case makers, shoemakers, CD makers 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!)
I would like to see this testimony. 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."
She also used to work at the Chamber of Commerce, and, perhaps coincidentally, is likely to be looking for a new job soon as the new administration turns its attention to the agency.
It's probably also a coincidence that PIRG and other consumer groups are largely composed of lawyers. Pin It
