.jpg)
I want to be clearer and more specific about the effect the CPSIA (Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act) will have on reselling when it goes into effect on February 10. As clear as I can be, that is, since it seems there's an awful lot of confusion.
You will no longer be able to place used children's clothes or toys into the "stream of commerce" unless you can prove that they've been tested for lead and pthalates. As I and others understand it, that means no selling items without such proof on ebay, Craigslist, yard sales, and church/organization consignment sales (See if your favorite sales are still scheduled). Of course, that means no buying kids' clothes and toys without certification from these sources either. This act could easily triple the amount that many families pay to clothe their kid until there are enough second-hand items manufactured after Feb. 10 to replenish the second-hand market (and even then it's likely that prices at thrift stores, etc. will be higher due to the added cost of testing them). It will absolutely eliminate the notion of recouping any of the cost of older items through reselling.
What about donations? My research tells me that you won't be able to donate your used kids' clothing and toys to Goodwill, the Salvation Army, or any place that would resells. They'd have to have proof that you had it tested for lead and pthalates. What that means for charities like Project Linus, which gives blankets to hospitalized newborns, or to charities that distribute clothing and toys without selling them, is unknown.
So can you give away your stuff on Freepeats, Freecycle, and Craigslist? What about swap meets? I've found one commenter that says no. Beyond that, there's little mention of it.
I do know one thing: If the goverment wants individuals to comply with this Act, it's going to have to do a better job of informing them. Until the government informs me otherwise, I'm going to assume that giving away your stuff on Freepeats will be okay.
Edited: Evidently Congress is in the process of determining exemptions to the new law. That's why it's so important to act now and let your voice be heard.
For more info on the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act, see this post.
Note: I'm adding little clarifications and bits of info to this post as I get them in an attempt to be as accurate as possible.
Jan 4, 2009
Gov't Says, Sorry, No More Reselling Your Kids' Stuff
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Join the 
90 comments:
This was actually my first thought when I heard about CPSIA about 2 months ago. I shopped consignment sales for kids items since I was pregnant with my first child in 2004. I would say probably 100% of things i bought for my children (clothes, shoes, blankets, toys, and even the crib) have been second hand. The only new items they had were gifts from baby showers and birthdays.
I have had 2 yard sales since 2004 and participated in 3 consignment sales, in addition to consigning items and a brick and mortar consignment shop. I totally can't imagine life without second hand children's items!
I hope the government doubles the tax credit per child to help us afford 100% new items!
This is ridiculous! So now the government is going to tell people what they can sell at yard sales? I (as I'm sure many people do) depend on a local consignment sale for clothes for both of my boys. I sell what we no longer need, and use the money to buy what we do need. Not being able to do this is going to put a huge strain on our budget. I agree with the previous poster, I hope they have a plan for helping the families out that they are going to be hurting with this.
That might explain why Salvation Army did not take a bag full of baby toys that I tried to drop off yesterday. They were practically new too! Does anyone know what will happen to Once Upon a Child stores? They are "professionals" and know about recalls etc. Ugh. I'm pregnant with my second, which happens to be the opposite gender of my first. Not only was I hoping to sell the old baby clothes, but I wanted to buy second hand clothes for the new baby too!
This is just one more thing that the government is trying to do that do not have the mean to make people comply with. Seriously, do you think this will be enforceable as a whole?
So I guess the governments efforts to "go green" are just a bunch of fluff as well as their "efforts" to help "main street" weather the financial crisis gripping all of us...
I've been trying to follow this new law and have been waiting for something definitive about used clothing/toys. Would you mind sharing where you got this specific information?
How on earth are they really going to be able to enforce this? Are they going to visit every yardsale and read every craigslist post? And if they do that, its starting to sound like Big Brother is watching you! I hate that this is going to hurt local sellers and wahm businesses, as well as my own wallet. I frequent a local consignment shop and get great deals. The majority of my daughters' clothes, toys, and baby gear is second hand and I was counting on reselling it down the road to fund bigger clothes for them.
anon #6: Start with the links in this post: http://tinyurl.com/8p76dl
This is also a good article: http://tinyurl.com/9nc6dh
Is there anyone we can write to in order to voice our opinion? I've looked without much luck.
Angie, you are giving the government too much credit. They are actually not that organized. From what I have read, by Feb 10 all items need to have general conformity certificates available to certify the lead and phthalate content. The actual individual items won't get the special label until late in the fall. Looking at the timeline for this Act, it all seems to be backwards. Basically lets ban everything and then figure out how to deal with it.
Is there an organization or list going around to voice our disagreement with how this is being carried out????
Hi! I agree this law is a bit broad, but it's not THAT broad!
A summary of the text of the law can be found here:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4040&tab=summary
From what I can see -- this law pertains ONLY to professional manufacturers/sellers, but I'd need to read the entire text of the bill to determine that for sure. There is a reference to ""third-party logistics provider" as a person who solely receives, holds, or otherwise transports a consumer product in the ordinary course of business but who does not take title to the product." Again, this would be a business, not an individual (businesses generally do not legally take title to items they sell).
Again, I'd need to read the full text to be certain, but the summary indicates an application to professionals, not individuals. In other words, yard sales, Craigs List, etc are safe from this law (there isn't government supervision of these things in the first place).
Melody -- you can email/write to your state congressman/woman and senator. Let them know about your concern over this law. They are the ones who voted on it and it is in their power to change it!
This is the first I have heard of such a law and I saw it on Facebook. I am not worried and will continue to buy and try sell stuff on craglist. If it were to be such a big deal, I am sure it would be plastered all over the news, not hearsay on the net. They have been making such a big stink about digital tv's and the count down until Feb 17 for that. If there was such a drastic deadline for all toys and kids clothes, I am sure there would be much more info out there, especially on the news and it would BE in the news for more than a month.
Number 14, I don't think the government thinks this is that big of a deal, they don't realize how financially crippling it will be to families everywhere. It is crazy that being able to watch TV is more important than this!
The gov. is doing this with our childrens safety and health in mind. They want to be sure our kids aren't exposed to lead. However, the way they are going about it is all wrong. I know many families that will be in big trouble once they try to shop for spring clothes and no second hand clothes are available.
Angie,
what are you going to do about freepeats?
I just skimmed through the GovTrack summary linked above (reading about 75% of it) and can't see how this will affect private sellers. I think it might have a negative impact on thrift consignment stores, but even that seems unclear based on the summary.
The full text of the bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-4040) is a bit more difficult to read. I did a quick search of the word thrift and it is only mentioned once:
"(4) the efforts of the Commission to reach and educate retailers of second-hand products and informal sellers, such as thrift shops and yard sales, concerning consumer product safety rules and product recalls, especially those relating to durable nursery products, in order to prevent the resale of any products that have been recalled, including the development of educational materials for distribution not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act."
That quote above is in relation to a requirement that the commission must tell Congress after 180 days what it did to make sure this happens.
Overall, I don't think this is as scary as I first thought. It seems, as a previous commenter pointed out, to apply to the original manufacturer and seller.
If I've missed something though, please share!
How can the common person prove that their items are pthlate-free andlead free? I mean, is the government going to provide places where people can go and have their items tested??? My guess is that they won't. This law sounds a bit socialist to me....
And by the way, I don't think the government has the right to tell their citizens what to buy and what not. It should be the decision of each individual parent what to feed, buy, clothe, and educate their own kids. We as a society have become too dependent on the government and people because we've become too lazy to make our own decisions...we are a REPUBLIC, not a dictatorship!
I bet the retailers have a LOT to do with pushing this law, since a lot of people have resorted to buy at thrift and consignment stores because we're not willing to spend $50 on a 'onesie' that our babies will outgrow in a week.
Frances, I highly doubt retailers are the ones pushing it. yeah, it subtracts the amount of recalls and what that costs a company, but to do lead testing on all items and have special tracking on them? It's as much of a nusance to them as it is to us.
And please, don't bring politics or politcal parties into this considering it passed 407-0 with 25 not voting in the House and 79-13 with 8 not voting in the Senate. It's both sides.
Unthinkable.
Ridiculous.
To anonymous - If the Congress felt the need to vote on it, then it is a political issue.
It doesn't matter than there was consent from the vast majority of voters. There are many people in this country who are not Republican or Democrat who agree completely with Frances. This type of invasion (if it turns out that private sales are affected) is not in line with a straight interpretation of the powers of Congress. They may have overstepped their bounds.
Camille and Jennifer,
The matter of second-hand sellers is indeed unclear, and I would absolutely LOVE to be blowing this out of proportion. My biggest hope is that this turns out to mean absolutely nothing for second-hand clothing and toy sellers. The interpretations I'm seeing online, unfortunately, written by those in the know or not, indicate otherwise.
A question for readers:
Do you think individual sellers who depend on ebay and/or craigslist for their income and report it for taxes would be considered "professional sellers" and be covered by the act? If so, how can we determine who's "professional" and who's not. Number of items sold? Income?
Jennifer S-yes, it is politics. but it's a different kind of politics, not the kind Frances was talking about. No need to throw around words like dictatorship and Big Brother. And if you don't like it, then contact your Congressman! He/She more than likely voted for it after American outcry over lead tainted toys. Yes, they need to figure out a better way to relay this to the American public, but don't be mad about the Act considering majority of Americans believed that there should be more safeguards to protect our children against lead, espcially those clothing and toys coming from China and other countries. Now there is.
doesn't sound like democracy the crazy things they consume themselves with maybe this is their answer to solving our economic recession? LOL did we vote on this? sounds like the iron fist telling us what we need to do......I don't like big gov bossing me around........common sense people......not so common should be called uncommon sense......I too have bought soooooooooooooooo much second hand we are healthy and fine from it?????????????? yeah that's causing all the accidents and illnessed don't get me started!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm advising an act, then watch and wait approach to this issue. There's a lot we don't know about exactly whom it will apply to.
If we go ahead and call/write legislators, sign petitions, etc. We'll be safe rather than sorry. If it turns out that the internet is wrong and thrift stores, ebay sellers, garage salers, etc. are exempt, then no harm done.
No matter who I tell about this, I get the same response: "Well, that can't be right, there must be a loophole..." Um, NO, there isn't! Not at this time! I am totally not an "activist" (if that is even the correct word) but this legislation has me riled enough to write letters, make phone calls, and contact everyone I know.
I was reading on another site that there is the possibility that the used clothing and toys cannot even go to a landfill because of the "hazardous materials" ban. Anyone know about that stipulation?
Kat - I just went to the full text of the bill and searched for "landfill," "dispose," "garbage,"and "trash." None of them showed up.
I think the person who said that might be getting ahead of themselves.
Good luck enforcing this!
Angie-
thanks so much for informing us of this! I had no idea such a law was to take into affect. I really hope there is more clarification and perhaps leniancy-I was going to have my first big garage sale this summer! I will keep a look out for updates, and thanks again!
I own a small business and manufacture some children's items, i.e., burp cloths, pacy clips, sippy cup covers, etc., so this law is of particular interest. I'm also an avid consignor/consignee in my area consignment sales. In doing research, I came across this letter posted on the cpsc.gov website. It better defines what items will be impacted which are limited to children's toys and childcare items. It does not include clothes with the exception of pj's for children 3 and under and dress up clothes, for play, not Halloween. The link to the letter is http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/321.pdf. As for me and my baby gift items, those will have to be put on hold. It's a big deal for consumers looking for deals at consignment sales, but think of all of the small businesses that hand-make toys and gifts that will not be able to afford independent lab testing on their crafted products even if they know that they are not in violation.
so how many people in our Government how stock or ownership in big stores?
This is such a frustrating issue, seems like there is a lot of conflicting information out there. I would love to see an official interpretation of the legislation that wasn't as vague and confusing as the government issued documents I've read.
Melanie - I've seen the document you referenced and it does seem to exempt clothing other than PJs, but only for the phthalates portion of the act. It's my understanding that lead certification would still be required.
Ashley-I think it's a pretty big assumption of you to assume that any vote is being bought out, considering that it passed in the House and Congress almost swimingly...
Perhaps we should not only be demanding our congressmen to take more precise action, but also ask the offices of these congressmen for a more detailed document that answers our questions. my DH used to be an aide to a state senator, and he had to do this all the time for constiuents. REMEMBER-you are there constituents! You have the right to demand information based on their vote.
Would be interested in penalties or other recourse, as well as odds of conflict with the authority. Who is even the authority / enforcer here? I'll roll my dice and take my chances. Worse case scenario doesn't seem too bad based on the spotty info available.
I am so sorry to tell everyone that this is indeed true. Go to the LA Times article here
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-thrift2-2009jan02,0,2083247.story
Or go to http://www.thesimpledollar.com
The penalties are stiff. $100,000 per violation, upto 5 years in jail etc. The enforcers are going to be State Attorney Generals and the CPSC.
this is the reason we are becoming communist. are govt is taking everything we have done for century's and doing away with it. the reason this is happening is some special interest group complained to the govt and to help these people get elected they get a law that is wrong. the are fine i have been wear second hand close since i was a baby i am 33 now and have 3 kids and 2 adopt kids who also where second hand close.it is time for us as americas to stand up and fight for what truly belongs to us are country and are govt.
Here is a story from about two weeks ago where the reporters actually asked the commission about thrift store merchandise.
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/columnist/story.aspx?storyid=96355&catid=79
It basically says that the PR person from the commission said if it is a one-of-a-kind item (meaning I think that the store carries only one of the item? I'm not sure about that) that no testing is required. That seems like a really pointless and vague distinction to me, but the story claims it puts most thrift stores on legal ground.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the reporter asked about pthalates. Only lead.
Your previous post was the first I heard about the CPSIA's effect on clothing, and I've been obsessed with the issue ever since! Spent many hours yesterday and today writing my own blog post on the subject. And due to some of the comments here, I spent more time tonight reading the actual laws and regulatory interpretations to try to separate Internet rumors and concerns from what's actually appears in the law. Here are a few thoughts:
1. Section 101 of the CPSIA defines children's items with lead levels greater than 600 parts per million to be "banned hazardous substances" under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Section 216 of the CPSIA makes it unlawful to "sell, offer for sale, distribute in commerce, or import" any of these "banned hazardous substances."
2. The rules for phthalates are similar, with the difference that Section 108 of the CPSIA directly institutes a ban on "sale, etc." of covered items with phthalate levels over the legal threshold. (I.e., it doesn't first define them as "banned hazardous products;" it directly prohibits their manufacture and sale.)
3. On a basic read, I couldn't figure out a seller's responsibility with regard to third-party testing certificates. The CPSIA says manufacturers (note sellers) must obtain the certificates. Then again, Section 216 makes it illegal to sell products that aren't in conformity with the Act's rules, so seller's may need to confirm that the manufacturer performed the required tests. Either way, the problem is proof of compliance. Sellers can't legally sell items that exceed the limits, and how will they know whether an item is banned unless they see test results?
4. On their face, Craigslist, Ebay, yard sales, etc. seem to be "sales" or "offers for sale." I don't see any reason these sales would be outside the rules. The big distinction is one of enforcement -- would state or federal regulators really care about these sales as long as they're infrequent?
5. With regard to "pure" donations to charity, as opposed to donations to thrift stores for resale, these should be allowed because they are not "sales." A 1974 letter on flammability standards supports this interpretation: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/209.pdf
6. The news article suggesting thrift sales would be allowable "one of a kind" items is intriguing. I haven't seen any mention of a "OOAK" exception in the laws or interpretations as they stand, but it's still a developing area. Maybe this is something the Consumer Product Safety Commission has under consideration? Anyone know more?
I called my state house representative this morning and logged my concern about this law. I tried my two state senators also, but they don't open their offices until 9 am. I'll be calling them shortly.
Basically, I told them I was concerned about what the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act meant to the average person and that I didn't think most members of congress knew they were passing a law that might ban thrift and consignment shops.
I can't recommend strongly enough the need for all of us to do this. You can find out who your senators are here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm. And your house rep can be found here: http://www.house.gov/
Good luck!
I donate most of my childrens clothes to local charities such as Salvation Army and Goodwill. This not only helps those in need but it helps me to, due to the fact that I have been trying to go "Green". Does the government really think that this is going to stimulate the economy? I think it is just going to cause moms more heart ache and going to create more trash. If the clothes that I am Donating are good enough for my kids to wear why are they not good enough for other kids? It is also causing job loss of business owners such as consignmet.
I left messages on my Senators' webpages yesterday (our new Congressman has not been seated yet) and on Change.gov, the Obama/Biden administration's transition website. I think the problem with the legislation is that they tried to make a blanket statement without thinking much about enforcement. Whoever wrote this bill probably did not think that far ahead, but wanted the credit for doing something green before Congress broke for the year.
Here is the government's website for the legislation: http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/cpsia.HTML
I am a lifelong Democrat and support any effort to improve consumer safety, but this is too far in my book. I think this bill should cover new products, rather than try to cover used items retroactively. Rather than trying to solve a problem in the past, why not just try to solve the problem in the future? I also wondered about the publicity for this bill; where was the public information we were supposed to have? The problem is probably that we are in the midst of a presidential transition as well as massive economic problems and things like this get lost in the mix, unfortunately!
I encourage everyone to contact Change.gov and try to motivate the new administration to look at this during their first 100 days. Angie, could you post the link to this site as well as a link to Congress.org, which is the Congress' official website. From there, you can find your elected officials and their contact information.
Hold your government officials accountable! This is why we elect them -- to represent us and our interests!
I have NEVER heard of this. Why hasn't it been made more public? This seems quite ridiculous.
"(4) the efforts of the Commission to reach and educate retailers of second-hand products and informal sellers, such as thrift shops and yard sales, concerning consumer product safety rules and product recalls, especially those relating to durable nursery products, in order to prevent the resale of any products that have been recalled, including the development of educational materials for distribution not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act."
I haven't read the whole text of the bill but I searched for certain words on the full text of the law. One of the responses on this page pasted the above part of the bill in her response. It says INFORMAL SELLERS. I am not 100% sure but "INFORMAL SELLERS" if considered generic term then it could include individuals as well.
If you're in the DFW area Channel 5 will be running a story on this topic at 6 p.m. today (1/5/08).
I just got off the phone with my congressman's office.
I'd really urge everyone to call rather than emailing. I happen to know they keep a log of phone calls they get, and the gal I talked to answered on the first ring and took a detailed message and all my contact information.
PS
I'm sorry whenever I comment I get those crazy symbols.
I'm really not trying to swear!!
I'm sorry, but I see nothing about clothes in the whole bill, which I just read. I only see stuff about cribs and other durable goods. There is a list of stuff like play pens, gates, walkers, and other stuff like that. Then there is a section on toys. I also saw pacifiers, teethers and other things they put in their mouths. There is never a mention of clothes that I could find. I think the agency in charge should put out a notice in plain english so the public knows what is really going to happen. Hopefully they will.
I can understand doing this for toys, only because there was so many toys recalled last year, I had to throw out so many toys that my son loves. But putting this on cloths is crazy. What am I supposed to do with all the cloths that my sons have grown out of? I like doing my part and bringing them to the goodwill. I have also bought stuff (clothes) from the goodwill. This is just yet another step to wear the government is trying to tell us how to live.
From my understanding, it is a PROPOSED law and not law yet. So, try not to panic yet!
I was just wondering why things were all going to the landfill (as I've seen on Twitter updates etc.) when freecycle is still allowed to give these items away. To me it looks like trading items will be ok, just not selling. My local freecycle group sent out an email saying that freecycle is still ok just not reselling.
Ok, I didn't go through ALL the replies to this post, but thought I'd throw this out there http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/108rfc.pdf It's a link that was posted by a friend of mine on myspace pertaining to this issue. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see anyting about reselling used items (ie craigslist, freecycle, yard sales, resale shops). I personally don't see how to government can efficiently regulate this if it were trying to keep "secondhand goods" off the market. I don't think even the government is that anal that they'll stoop to patrolling goodwill and your local yard sales to regulate this. It really does need to be clarified better however.
Seriously - is the gov't going to make our already underpaid, understaffed law enforcement agencies drive around our communities looking for yard sale infractions?! Come and get me!
The government has no problem to not test first hand sales of items from China and India. So their answer is to test 2nd hand sales... WTF? Pelosi is such a nutcase.
"Pelosi is such a nutcase."
Truer words have never been spoken. The women shouldn't be in the position she's in.
To clarify for some people:
My boss has heavily researched this (a given since she owns a Kid to Kid) and yes, it effects second hand stores. Yes, it covers any clothing, even plain old cotton t-shirts. Yes, it is already a law which will go into effect on February 10th if nothing is done. Yes, I will lose my job and my favorite place to get things for my kids if that happens. The economic and environmental impact of this really scares me.
PLEASE call or write if you disagree with this.
Don't ya know that is how they are going to keep unemployment down? :)
Just a hop, skip and a jump from evicting families from their houses that contain any lead at all, even if it doesn't come in contact with the child at all (I.E. government owned piping underground)
Ah, another way the government is telling us what's good for us because we can't raise our own children without their supervision.
I do not see the harm in re-selling used clothing. Is the government trying to tell us that by wearing and washing articles of clothing that the lead content in them will increase? I just don't understand the logic.
Shouldn't the government be enforcing this law itself by checking the items before they are allowed into the US. Help the crappy chinese manufactures continue to bring in their lead filled toys, but screw the hard-working american who is trying to save a buck by using secondhand items. Way to go, US. Thanks for hosing us yet again!
if you are planning on ignoring this law and selling this stuff anyway. You are putting yourself at risk in a civil way. If you sell clothes that have not been tested you can be heald fiscally liable for any damages or percieved damages to the consumer.
That is crazy. I just heard abotu it today from my friend. I guess I am glad we are in the military and are currently living overseas. Do military have to apply to this if we live overseas? We do have yard saled where we live on our base but do we have to follow this law if we do not live in the US right now? WHen we lived in South Carolina we always gave our stuff to the comsignment store on the military base to allow the lower income families on base to get stuff. It is not sold but given to certain people under a certain rank. Would they have to apply to this new law? They sure do need to give us more money per child if they expect us to pay the prices the stores are selling clothes for.
It is my understanding that as of 08.19.09 toys/items manufactured for children under age 12 will be required to have a permanent label so that they can be traced to the original manufacurer, batch, etc. This way, the testing is the responsibility of the manufacturer (as it SHOULD be) and items with those permanent labels could be resold. Of course it would take time for the stores/charities to replenish their stock and between Feb. 10 and when that happened, selling would be illegal without testing.
I don't live in the USA and do not have kids either, so my opinion won't be that interesting. However, I think these controls and tests are somewhat necessary... You have mentioned Ebay. Ebay's an interesting place but you can either find good or bad articles on it and there's no way for you to control what's sold to you. It's the same in secondhand shops, how can you get a guarantee that what you will buy for your child will have a quality and that the fabric won't contain something bad in it? It's a matter of hygiene to me, that's why I think these tests are important.
Hygiene? If you wash it with soap then that should take care of the hygiene element. I don't understand this squeamishness or wasteful attitude. The children's stuff sold in thrift stores was often bought six months ago or a year. Are you equally concerned about stuff hanging in your closet that you bought that long ago? Don't you have anything in your closet that you've had for ten years or more? And if so, are you concerned about what it might contain?
Yes, it is good for there to be regulations on new things that are produced. No, children's toys that may be chewed on should not be coated in a fresh, poisonous coating of lead paint. However, wasting perfectly good clothing items and toys that most likely do not contain anything harmful and would not impact a child's health even if they did is ridiculous. Here in the US we've been giving lip service to living green and recycling and re-using for decades and to suddenly start banning children's toys and clothing because of some small, remote possibility something might be wrong with them spits in the face of any kind of environmentalism. We waste enough, and frankly with the state of the economy most families can't afford to buy everything new- and why should they?
Some of the comments that got all het up about our "right to buy used stuff" as red-blooded Americans made me smile, as it is just a little bit much- but on the other hand, I feel there is some kernel of truth behind the excessive rhetoric. Darn it, if I want to buy my neighbor's used kids' clothing or toys at a consignment store, I should be able to, and I don't appreciate government interference in this private matter.
Anyone angry at the SOURCE of this issue which is CHINA?!?!?! If we wouldn't have swung the door wide open for anything and everything to be made over there just so that CEOs could pad their pockets even more, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Law about ALL of this went in to act in the US a very long time ago (late 70's I believe), but OUR laws don't pertain to overseas manufacturers.
Just wanted to point that out. Sounds like the government is trying to play catch up because of the problems that have spiraled out of control in regards to contaminant of our children's products.
Sad, very sad.
Flame resistant sleepwear is already a requirement, and if you look at most items that you buy for pajamas, it says right on them "do not wear for sleepwear". LOL! I would stretch to bet that ALL of us have let our kiddos sleep in them at one time or another...I used to buy polyester only, but if you read the fine prine, it's only good if you don't use soap, etc. etc. etc., and if there are flames in my child's bedroom, whether or not her clothing is flame resistant is mute...she's in trouble.
WHEW! Sorry to be so long winded. I think the theory behind this is great, I think the REASON behind it is China's poor manufacturing practices, and I think we will all make it through it. We'll still be able to buy clothing from Craiglist and Ebay, but we may not be able to buy pajamas for a while...they usually don't hold up well enough to sell, anyway. *wink* At least not in my opinion.
Do the stores have to provide a certificate for what they are selling saying it doesn't contain lead. Most of the recalls I have heard of are stuff the store is selling so how do we know what we are buying from the stores doesn't contain it?
I'm a resale owner and have necessarily had to research this very carefully. If you put a product in the "stream of commerce" that does not meet the lead or phalates (sp?) standards, and they get very specific about reselling, leasing, etc. items, then you are in violation and face up to $100,000 fine per transaction and possible felony charges. The catch is that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) ruled the Congressional intent for lead is the standard is applied retroactively (even though it's not stated in the original law). So a perfectly safe, legally made and sold item on February 9th will be "hazardous material" on February 10th unless it has a certificate of compliance or a "reasonable testing program" can be shown. The cheapest alternative I know of is a handheld machine which costs over $20,000.
I'm the calm one, my wife is more prone to overreact, and when she first approached me I thought, "No, this is impossible". It's not, folks. The more I've researched, the scarier it has been unless the CPSC changes it's mind about Congressional intent or an act of Congress changes or clarifies the language (and the bailout morass last fall shows just how slow a process that is even when everyone generally agrees). Contact your federal congressional offices and local officials (other sites have stories of them being very interested and wanting to help). The more pressure is applied and the more the disastrous effects of this poorly written legislation and even less thought out interpretations of the law, the more likely a quick response which will solve this mess.
I'm the previous poster, and I read some of the Pelosi comments above. Don't think this is a party thing. 1 House representative voted against this, less than 5 in the Senate. The truth is no one knew what they were signing off on (too busy trying to get reelected) and no one could have known that the CPSC would have interpreted the law the was they did.
I have stopped following Federal regulations some time ago, in fact not paying attention to any that would inconvience me or otherwise reduce to far more effort than any possible benefit. I'll continue to obey those that are in the realm of reasonable, but this is getting silly. I don't know how my generation (I'm a tail end baby boomer) survived given all the "hazards" the US Government now claims they protect children from, not to mention meddling by some states in almost every aspect of family life using the schools as bases for enforcing their rules.
Everyone ignore this bullshit, lets see them prosecute some people under this stupid law first. The burden of proof is on them, they have to prove you HAVEN'T had things tested, which is almost impossible (proving a negative is in fact impossible, which is another reason this law is stupid, as you can't, as the government, prove an item WASN'T tested).
Screw the federal government until they again start obeying the Constitution.
MAYBE the stupid government should have REGULATED these toys in the first place instead of allowing these toys with lead to even enter our country. THEY should be the ones we take down, not them taking down the 2nd hand stores. Not to mention...I am 29 and doing just fine with or without lead products!!
I was in a consignment shop today and I overheard the owner talking on the phone about her options with these crazy new regulations. It was the first I'd heard of it. I can't believe it. The gov't should have lead testing sights.... that way our children can be safe and shop owners won't have to spend 400 dollars a day to rent a lead screener.
They could have a lead screener in each county. If the government hadn't let these cheap toys into the country, we wouldn't be having this problem... they should fix it without putting this burden on us. TERRIBLE!
This Is absolutly horrible. NOT only is the government taking away ALL our rights slowly, now they are saying lets make them pay full price for EVERYTHING.
What about small home daycares and centers?
Most of these places get there items second hand. A small daycare has many babies using theses items, witch wear away more quickly. So that means they have to buy NEW items everytime a child damages or ruins a toy/extra clothing.
The costs will definitly force many home daycares to close down.
We in this field, SOLEY RELY on second hand items, to help cut costs and make a living. What about the "little guys"?
Don't we count anymore?
Why are we the ones to suffer ( Like Thrift Stores and small crafts business, SAHM ) Why they dont impposed this to manufacturers,I know they want our kids to be safety., but surely they need to revised that!!
It should be:
1. LEAD TESTING IS FREE AND IMPOSED IN EACH COUNTY.
2. ANY ITEM THAT IS TESTED IN LEAD OR PTHALATE WILL BE DISPOSED IMMEDIATELY.
3. EVERY COUNTY SHOULD HAVE A PLACE OR A BIG CONTAINER/TRASH COMPACTOR FOR THIS AND DISPOSED PROPERLY.
Theres no need to hurt little people like us. They should make this Law works for everyone.
Thats Just Me.
I am glad we have safety issues but goodness - enough is enough! Will the prices decrease so we all can afford to buy at the mall! Now we will all go to stores like Target and Walmart where they buy foreign to keep prices down. Or all of our things will end up in a land dump! I am going "Green" just like the government wants us to do - but yet they are now taking that away. Where is our "freedom of choice"?
all we buy for our kids is second hand and this is a private matter!! we have the right to buy used stuff for our kids!!! now times are so hard!!
I just found this update on the CPSC from January 8, 2009. The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children’s products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. 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.
This is somewhat of a relief! I still don't like the government mandating what I can or can not buy!
Here is a link to the CPSC's clarification:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html
Doesn't seem fair to me. I own a small children's clothing manufacturing company. How can I make an outfit and it be illegal, drive it to the local consignment shop and wow, now it is legal!
A friend of mine just sent me to this blog and I wanted to share this...Second Hand Resellers are EXEMPT...check out the CPSC website for details. Panic over--we will still be able to purchase (and sell) second hand clothes!
I'm afraid second hand retailers aren't exempt from the act. They don't have to test, but they do have to avoid selling items that they can't be assured don't contain lead or pthalates.
Resellers aren't out of the woods until we can ascertain just how it is that they can get that assurance.
In my own opinion America needs to start buying stuff made in America Forget the Chinese, the Japanese ect. I am sure they laugh at America every chance they get. Check those toys and stuff out that are recalled, where are they usually from? like duh China. I am a mom of a 4 year old, so I know where a good majority of you come from. Also a lot of friends and family members of mine had babies within 2 years of each other and we passed around a lot of our children's cloths.
For those concerned with this change, please read...
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html It will clarify that this is not for the individual consumer reselling their children's clothes and not really even thrift stores. Hope this helps.
I own a small children's consignment store and I have been very worried about this new change. But I just read through the latest release and here is the good news:
The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children’s products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. 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. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties. "
I called our church whose consignment sale is scheduled for March and the lady in charge said that amendments had been made and that the law would not affect their Lil Lambs sale although she could not specify the details fo the amendment...
Wow this has really created a lot of panic, not as much by the facts but mostly on heresay and mis-information. This bill will hardly affect individuals reselling their used baby items but will effect businesses selling childrens items. These businesses have an obligation to us an our childen, period! There are many businesses that strive to carry only safe, non-recalled items but even then it's hard for them to know the contents and origins of every part. Then there are other businesses that just buy cargo containers of toys and childrens items from places like China where they don't test or even care what's in or on these toys. So when you stop by a dollar store (just an example)and get that plasic doll or necklace for your daughter that she then sucks on or puts in her mouth, you just wanted to quell the gimmes but in reality you could be harming her precious brain, nervous system and much worse. Would any parent knowingly wound, poison, or kill our children, hell no... so why pay others to do it as we look the other way? Who is going to regulate these businesses? Do you know where the toys you buy come from and what's in them? Go to the store (hardware or other) and get a lead testing kit go through your home household items, toys, dishes, you'll be shocked. I did this 2 years ago and ended up throwing out a lot of dishes including the super cute kids Easter Cups I had bought 10 of from Starbucks for my kids. MANY toys, dishes and general items left my home that day, not to a consignment store or the salvation army but the garbage and I realized that I buy so much more than we really ever need. Now I shop carefully buy less and although the items cost more, they are safe, are quality, and I end up spending a LOT less.
Post a Comment