Comments on: CPSIA activists hurting the cause!

By: CPSIA chronicles, February 19

CPSIA chronicles, February 19 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:18:32 +0000

[...] meme without better evidence than has surfaced to date, for reasons outlined by David Foster, Kathleen Fasanella, and Deputy Headmistress. The latter two point quite reasonably to the long paper trail in which [...]

By: Dawn Michelle

Dawn Michelle — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:52:17 +0000

Hello,
My name is Dawn LaPolla and I own Baby Sprout Naturals. I urge you to visit http://www.ReformCPSIA.org. I am working with Rachele Dressler-Sweetser to gather supporters for the lawsuit. The site will have information regarding the suit and I will be updating it regularly – Please subscribe so that you may receive updates when posted.

If you are interested in participating in the lawsuit you may submit a request form via the website. Just follow the links and the form will be at the bottom of the page. You are under no obligation by filling out the form.

I also urge you to sign the petition I sponsor here: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/reform-cpsia-hr4040.html#sign

Sincerely,
Dawn Michelle
Baby Sprout Naturals.com
dlapolla@gmail.com

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:20:44 +0000

On the most recent update for it, I was noticing this part of the wording:

Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards.

The new safety law does not require resellers to test children’s products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. However, resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit.

It seems to me that these statements are completely contridictory. Thrift stores, by law, don’t have to submit their products for testing, but at the same time, they can’t sell anything that’s over the legal limit. How are they to know what is or isn’t over the limit unless it’s tested? They’re just supposed to guess at the levels, and if it’s over they’ll be fined?!

Absolutely ridiculous.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:58:02 +0000

Swarvoski does make lead free crystals so how are you absolutely certain that the pacifiers you refer to contained lead. This is splintering the cause too. If that is the only thing you can say after reading this entry, then I can only surmise you're trying to be argumentative. How did I know? Well, I can't know other than that the vendor claimed these were genuine Swarvoski lead crystals. So no, I didn't drag out my XRF testing gun and you're right, it wouldn't be the first time someone improperly marketed their product. I should have been more clear. My quarrel was not so much lead as it was that ANYTHING glued on -especially to a pacifier!- constitutes a choking hazard. There's existing CPSC regulations banning crap like this. Many indie producers are not well informed about existing laws or bans much less about this new one. Of the ones that do know, again, many think because they're so small, the law doesn't apply to them. You can go on Etsy and find page after page of products that defy existing laws and regulations (and the CPSC knows it). Or, they think that because they are a nice person and a small indie crafter made with all the good intentions in the world, that their products are safe. I don't expect you to like this but as a percentage of total production, large companies put out safer products than tiny independents. They can't escape notice as easily. If anything, this law is going to force crafters who are serious about it to become more professional.

By: Heather

Heather — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:52:14 +0000

Swarvoski does make lead free crystals so how are you absolutely certain that the pacifiers you refer to contained lead. This is splintering the cause too.

By: Sherri

Sherri — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:16:46 +0000

I agree something needed to be done a long time ago. Disagree with the fact larger companies could qualify for government funding to have their products tested, I don’t have this same advantage.
I disagree with the fact that 65 known cancer causing chemicals are inside car seats and that this information is not public noted inside the manuals of car seats. I disagree with the fact that knowing this, the CPSIA timeline does not include testing on car seats and or booster seats.
I firmly believe testing of products should of been done a long time ago before they hit the retail shelves, and I must ask myself, who is at fault for allowing products to enter in to the United States, where these products sit on a retail shelf and then sold to the consumers. Who was suppose to test these foreign products? Why were these products not tested a long time ago by the United States or required of companies over sea’s to produce a lead rate for our own compliance here in the United States.
Flame retardant has all sort of chemicals. It’s one of the things in fabric to keep a child safe inside a car seat, what they wear to bed, so they do not burn.
Most of the food companies are allowed to add chemicals to the food all humans consume that would over time kill rats. But we eat it any ways, we just can’t avoid all the chemicals even if we try very hard to protect ourselves and our children.
High Fructose Corn Syrup is a hazard to all human consumption, but the FDA allows this to be placed in all sort of fruit juices that children consume every single day.
I think if the United States wants to force in to act anything. It should start with enforcing that anything brought in to the United States must pass strict guidelines or be sent back or destroyed, not end up on the retail shelves for consumers to purchase, for children to become ill, filled with lead.
Products that all children touch, eat, sleep on and use should of been tested a long time ago.
One must ask, why all the United States manufactures went scouting over sea’s to produce and manufacture their products to start with. ?
We would have to go back to where this started and correct the problem.

By: MLO

MLO — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 04:38:25 +0000

Um… Yeah, right. This is another NAIS. I’m just surprised it isn’t more blatant with exceptions for campaign donors. All legislation in Washington, D.C. is written by lobbyists these days. No one cares about the little guy. It doesn’t matter which industry.

It is built into the system that the big guys are protected by legislation while the little guy gets hurt. This is just the way it is.

By: Margaret

Margaret — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:13:04 +0000

I think it’s dead wrong to agree to complicity in any form over this heinous act by congress.

This isn’t representation, it is dictatorial. I refuse to allow it to continue. I’m organizing a call list and need 200 volunteers to flood the phones for 2 days. I’m shooting for Wednesday, Dec 10 and Thursday, Dec 11. Please sign in to Etsy and sign up for duty:
http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=5945166

I don’t make children’s products, but that’s not the point. The point is this legislation is utter nonsense, no “improvements” will take place (we make the safest products in the world, for goodness’ sake) and prices go up on EVERYthing. The less money people have to spread around, the less they have to spend on MY business. That means I’m out of business, too. As if we all aren’t pushing hard enough in the current economic conditions.

By: Maura

Maura — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:51:34 +0000

I definitely took the intended purpose of the legislation into account when I wrote my letter.

A sample of what I said (putting a human face on it):
“I am a mother of two young children and while I applaud the new, more stringent testing requirements for mass-produced children’s merchandise, I am deeply saddened by the fact that this legislation, while on the surface necessary, is now so broad in scope and poorly defined that it will create more problems than it solves. [...] While we are grateful that something is being done, it seems to have gone off the rails somewhere along the way.”

I closed with:
“The CPSIA needs to be modified before it goes into effect. It needs to be analyzed, its true costs measured, and its flaws remedied. I only hope you can help preserve the spirit of this legislation, while making it a realistic and useful part of our economic system.”

By: Jody

Jody — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:29:08 +0000

Please take Kathleen’s words to heart and alter your message if you see it here. There is no real enemy here, just an inept Congress that passed a very bad piece of feel-good legislation without thinking it through. If you don’t beleive this, the only other conclusion you could draw is that Congress did indeed have a thorough understanding of the full scope of manufacturing, large and small, in this country. And, after what we’ve seen in the past year, can anyone really beleive that this Congress has a full and thorough understanding of anything?

And, I suspect that the CPSC is not really the enemy either, although Kathleen brings up a valid point in an earlier post regarding potential political motivations of some of the higher ups at the agency. But, working in government myself, I’m guessing that most CPSC staff are probably just trying to figure out what to do with the mess that Congress created for them.

I will cease to rant here and echo Kathleen’s words of caution. We need to frame our fight within the context of the law and its flaws, not point fingers at our large-scale colleagues. And yes, large manufacturers are our colleagues and more importantly, they have the means to yell louder. I’m not implying that our grassroots efforts are not important. On the contrary. We just all need to work together. Kathleen is helping us to do that with her work through AAFA and her recent trip to DC.

One final though and I’ll shut up. It is VITALLY important that while we are fighting this issue that we impress upon anyone and everyone who will listen that we, as apparel manufacturers, are very concerned about child safety. Our issue is that this law, as written, imposes huge costs on our industry while providing little to no additional gains in child safety.

Please alter your message if you’re sending the wrong one.