Anti-CPSIA stories build as implementation deadline approaches

Jeff Stier of the American Council on Science and Health wrote a blistering opinion piece for the New York Post today, claiming that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act will cost tens of thousands of Americans their jobs. It's the latest in a round of stories that seem to want to backtrack on the bill which would require better safety standards for products made for kids (here's a three-parter from Forbes).

The build-up of anti-CPSIA stories probably signals a fight looming before the February 10 deadline for implementation of the bill's testing component. 

The Consumers Union team working on the issue stresses that the law doesn't need to be rolled back but the Consumer Product Safety Commission does need to step in.

In our opinion, it’s not Congress’ turn to act quickly – they already have in passing legislation that will help ensure the safety of the products placed in the hands of children and stave off the need to recall millions upon millions of unsafe products as we’ve seen over the past two years.  The onus for action should be squarely placed on the leadership of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which needs to find appropriate ways to address legitimate concerns for possible exemptions from testing requirements without undermining the purpose of the new law - to ensure that products are safe.   

This is a topic the Safety blog has been following closely and will continue to cover as the February 10 deadline approaches.

Comments

[Quin Dodd]

Why cant you and the other "consumer advocates" just admit that the CPSIA is clearly overly broad and overly prescriptive in several key areas and can ONLY be changed in these areas by the body that passed it in the first place...that would be CONGRESS. The CPSC simply does not have the leeway to grant whatever exemptions from lead and other provisions you apparently think it does...have you READ the findings that have to be made before a lead exemption can be made, for example???

I have seen a lot of hypocricy in my day in Washington, but for you and especially Congress to criticize the Acting Chairman of the CPSC, my former boss, for how she and the agency are implementing the law that you and the left wing of Congress wrote really takes the cake. First her resignation is demanded for criticizing the VERY PROVISIONS that are now forcing hundreds of businesses to unnecessarily shutter and forcing thousands of Americans out of work with virtually NO discernable increase in public health or safety. Now she is criticized for trying to implement this white elephant with NOT A PENNY of increased funding.

C'mon...there's doing your job and then there's just being plain disengenous. Do the right thing and work to make this bill address actual hazards, not media hype.

[Claudia Towles]

As a small business owner I am dumbfounded by the lack of thought that went into this bill.

Reactive, careless and irresponsible are a few adjectives that fit the bill. How can we expect small mom and pop retailers, mommy start ups and crafters to come out of this one?

Small retailers that are by in large are responsible, thoughtful and picky when stocking their stores face the inevitable demise of their businesses. A law passed in Congress with no thought to the actual ramifications of its implementation.

Castigating small retailers, small manufacturers and mommy start ups for the negligence and greed of large corporations who sacrifice quality in lieu of price points should not be tolerated.

[Ian]

We have several small vendors that produce many, small, inexpensive products. Testing each product will put them out of business. For example, one vendor makes craft products out of color-laser printed templates and popsicle sticks. Each one sells for about $8. They have over 30 different products. At the low end of the testing spectrum they would have to spend over $12,000 to test them all. How long do you think it will take them to recoupe the costs? Do you think they will be in business next year?

We have another vendor that makes laminated flash cards. There are about 25 different card sets that sell for $4 each. Do you think they will be in business next year?

Or how about the companies that already use certified lead-free pewter to make figurines? Some of these vendors we work with have over 100 designs. Do you think they will keep producing them?

This law is too far reaching, regardless of whether or not it is "for the children".

[Kristen]

It is unfortunate that the law, as written, is overly broad and vague. Paper and ink books? They have to be tested. One-of-a-kind items made as handcrafts? They have to be tested. 100% cotton t-shirts? They have to be tested.

The law also does not specify who is responsible for testing items that were produced before 2/10/09 (e.g., everything that is in wholesale and retail inventory at this moment). Will the government pay for this testing? As a retailer, I bought and paid for those items two-three months ago. I highly doubt that the manufacturers will accept returns, or do the testing for me. And my business can't afford to have everything tested ourselves. Yet, my business is still liable if something contains lead.

The costs of third-party testing, certification, and administration will drive countless businesses under. Those that survive will surely raise prices (some estimates are 20%-30%).

While we must ensure that harmful substances stay out of the children's goods supply chain, there has to be another way. The CPSC can't possibly "address legitimate concerns for possible exemptions from testing requirements," because they do not have the legal authority to do so. They were handed a law as-is for enforcement, and are understaffed and underfunded to even do that. Only congress can act to amend this law and bring some common sense to what is will otherwise cause another catastrophic blow to the floundering U.S. economy.

[Sari]

how can a home based business employing one Stay At Home Mom, or disabled person afford testing? How can they afford to close up their businesses?

Can the country afford to pick up the slack with welfare, food-stamps and energy assistance for the families that had been relying on their cottage industry?

Toys and children's products are NOT even a common source of lead poisoning...which is in most cases from peeling paint in old buildings, old plumbing, or parents who bring in lead dust on their clothing when they come home from work.

Lead poisoning from a toy or other children's item is a News Story BECAUSE it is so rare. In all the cases in the 2007 recalls, the items with lead have come from China and India.

So how does forcing US small and micro businesses out of the market fix the problem?

When I'm buying my supplies at the fabric shop, supplies that are already supposed to be safe, how does redundant testing help anyone? How can crocheting lead free yarn, and adding lead free findings, and lead free stuffing produce a toy with lead?

The approved labs in the US are NOT willing to take our small businesses as clients, as it's not worth the time for them, and they've already got a full plate. The cost is also prohibitive, even at $5/material for XRF testing, all my items are one of a kind, which means each item needs a minimum of 2 tests, more often 3 and sometimes more. Add that $5/material plush shipping, and now my doll that sold at $20 is $50, more than my market will bear.

What KILLS me is that even though 90%+ of my end users are adult and teen COLLECTORS of art plush, because my product is cute, it can't possibly be anything besides a "toy" for most people who look at them.

If the law doesn't change I don't have many viable choices, I'm one of the people who due to disability can't just go out and get a job (ANY job). There's nothing else I am well enough to do.

Likewise, the low income families that rely on charities and 2nd hand shops will be caught with no options. For some of families, even Walmart is too expensive. The "exemption" for these 2nd hand shops and charities is that they don't have to test, but that they CAN face charges if there is a product on their shelves that doesn't comply. Most seem to be deciding to get out of carrying items for kids.

While there does need to be oversight for the Mass Production subcontracted overseas, and that CPSC needs better funding. This law is too broad and too sweeping. It will result in the same problems continuing in Mass Produced items, while the safe handmade and small factory made items, made with safe materials, vanish from the market.

[Kelly Rankin]

I am first a mom, and have child safety at heart. However, this law is so broadly written, it puts an end to handmade child items that are made with non-toxic, certified lead-free materials. Many small businesses, such as my hair bow company, already use certified non-toxic and tested materials. However, because we tie a bow and wrap it in thread, and attach it to a lead-free clip we *may* accidentally add lead so we need to have it retested!?! Where is the logic?

Instead of such a broad law, Congress should be cracking down on the companies that have caused the problem with lead in toys. Don't "fix" a problem that does not exist with a poorly written law that will hurt more people than it helps!

[Red Ryder]

Quin Dodd is absolutely right. The agency has precious little leeway here. The law must be repealed, or heavily modified.

Amazing that no one (except the agency) actually read this terrible law! Note that there were 106 co-sponsors of the original bill. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon, but no one read it or understood it.

Par for the course for Congress, but they got exposed this time. Their feet should be held to the fire.

[Jeff Stier]

For context, see my earlier op-ed on CPSIA: http://www.nypost.com/seven/12212007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/toxic_toys__false_alarm_152471.htm

You need a bit of scientific understanding about what lead poisoning is. Those who say "there are NO safe levels of lead" are not exactly speaking scientifically. Should we add lead to children's products? Of course not! But lets get a bit of an understanding of where we are in terms of lead poisoning- (WAY WAY DOWN) and where it comes from in the rare cases there are problems: in inner cities. Why? Because of peeling old lead based paint. Lets focus on where the real problem is - and get the peeling old paint issue resolved before we go around hunting for every single part per million in clothing and toys.

Jeff
p.s. I'm glad you found my article blistering. The issue deserves it.

[Kelly Rankin]

Sadly, items that have to be tested include those that have already been proven to be lead free! For example, I can combine a lead-free hair clip (already tested) with a lead-free ribbon (already tested), use lead free glue (already tested). However, I still have to have the bow RETESTED at a cost 100X what I can actually sell the bow for. Needless to say, my hair bow business will be closing shop on February 10th if this law is not changed.

The intention was good, but revisions MUST be made, or thousands of handmade product manufacturers will lose their jobs and businesses in just a couple weeks!

[June Erica Vess]

This bill is a prime example near-jerk reactionary politics at its worst.

Most cases of lead poisoning in the US come from crumbling infrastructure and old housing (lead in paint, lead in pipes). If you look at the lead recalls in toys, you will see they all come from China, India, etc.

Yet this law covers and all products for children, even items made from paper and cloth, which is just overkill. That sort of broadness will make it very hard to enforce and will strain the already stressed resources of the CPSC.

Any foreign manufacturers unscrupulous enough to allow lead-tainted materials into their toys in the first place will also be unscrupulous enough to forge the General Compliance Certificates for their items rather than pay to get them tested.

So really no one is safer, just a lot of Americans will be out of work.

[Alex Stuart]

CPSIA was written with the best intentions but in an attempt to move this Bill as quickly as possible it was written without a full understanding of all of the implications that the law would have at all levels. As written all children's library books currently on the shelves must be removed and destroyed by February 10, 2009. The wet testing method required destroys what is tested and it is impossible to test these books.

All home craft makers who make children's items and toys must test all items including those made exclusively of materials that are used that already carry a Non-Toxic certification. There is no need for duplication in testing to know that these items are 100% child safe.

Many consumers who relied upon Made in the US handmade toys and children's apparel will no longer have this option in the marketplace as the testing requirements are far to expensive for the handmade cottage businesses to remain in business.

Some have stated that it is greed that motivates the small businesses who are most harmed by this law. It is not greed but a need for survival in this failing economy and continual job loss. Our children's welfare is important to everyone, but our children can be just as safe by restricting the lead-based imports that have created all of the harm that has occurred. And this was the intent of the original law as proposed.

[Alex Stuart]

CPSIA was written with the best intentions but in an attempt to move this Bill as quickly as possible it was written without a full understanding of all of the implications that the law would have at all levels. As written all children's library books currently on the shelves must be removed and destroyed by February 10, 2009. The wet testing method required destroys what is tested and it is impossible to test these books.

All home craft makers who make children's items and toys must test all items including those made exclusively of materials that are used that already carry a Non-Toxic certification. There is no need for duplication in testing to know that these items are 100% child safe.

Many consumers who relied upon Made in the US handmade toys and children's apparel will no longer have this option in the marketplace as the testing requirements are far to expensive for the handmade cottage businesses to remain in business.

Some have stated that it is greed that motivates the small businesses who are most harmed by this law. It is not greed but a need for survival in this failing economy and continual job loss. Our children's welfare is important to everyone, but our children can be just as safe by restricting the lead-based imports that have created all of the harm that has occurred. And this was the intent of the original law as proposed.

[Jayme]

As a parent of three very small children, I imagine I'm supposed to be part of the demographic that would champion this law. The truth is, that I am firmly against this particular reactionary legislation. As a small business owner that produces eco-friendly children's wear, I am offended at the very anti-American notion that this law perpetuates... that I am guilty until proven innocent. My cotton textiles (as with nearly all other textiles) contain virtually no lead, certainly below even the strictest standards set forth by this law.

What is really infuriating is that huge corporations have presented comprehensive scientific evidence that textile products inherently contain NO lead. There have been extensive tests using lead as a ineffective dye mordant, and the result is STILL a lower level of lead ppm that what is required by this law. Unfortunately, special interest groups and consumer "advocates" fail to understand this very elementary fact. One cannot produce lead. A lead free product dyed with lead free dye/mordant and stitched into a toy or garment will still be lead free. Redundant and prohibitively expensive testing will render many thousands in the children's industry unable to comply.

Of course, as an educated parent and consumer, I most definately want the products I purchase for my family to be of the highest safety standards. This law, however, is the very defination of government overregulation. I am hoping that common sense will eventually prevail.

[Keena Lindsay]

It seems to me that the problem facing the crafter businesses with this bill is the same problem that we always face. According to government, we don't count in the "small business" category. One person is not a small business. We're more along the lines of cottage industry. The voices in Washington looking out for "small businesses" are talking about businesses with around 200 employees.

The one good thing I see about this bill is that it's finally getting enough of us to unite and speak out that our voice might be heard!

I'd rather pay a few extra cents for a skein of baby yarn or yard of fabric that's been tested by a larger company that can more easily absorb/distribute the cost amoung its products. It's already a struggle to get paid what my time is worth. If I had to add a few thousand dollars on top of the time and money I've already put into a project, I couldn't possibly hope to recover the cost. I think it's an unnecessary expense all down the line ending at the eventual customer to test finished products made from supplies that should have already been tested.

[samiam]

I believe that the CPSIA legislation as it is written needs serious changes and/or amendments.

Based on my reading of this legislation, the point is a good one, but implementation of this "feel good" law could devastate small and micro businesses.

From what I understand, all end users must test all components they use in products they sell for children under the age of 12 years old. Many micro and home business owners produce one of a kind and small runs of products to be distributed to targeted markets. Most of the tests are expensive and some are destructive. Many of the components they use are inherently lead and phthalate free.

On it's face this law seems reasonable. We ALL want our children to be protected. However, when one looks closer one will see that this is a nightmare of expensive, duplicate testing of products that should already comply before these products hit the distribution chain.

As a specific example, a micro business of a husband and wife who use commercially available yarn, ribbon, wood and paint to make home decor items for children's rooms would soon have to test those products even though those products contain no lead or phthalates. Why should the overly burdensome requirement of duplicate testings be put on end users?

Since many micro businesses already produce safe toys and other products in direct response to dangerous imports from China and India it seems that this legislation needs to target large manufacturers and importers, not end users of components. Those manufacturers and importers should be responsible for compliance BEFORE their products hit the distribution chain in the US.

As a further example, if one company makes yarn and that yarn is distributed to craft stores such as Michael's or Hobby Lobby why should the 10,000 end users each be responsible for testing that yarn when yarn already contains no lead or phthalates.

Honestly, this law is poorly written and needs to be amended to make sense in the real world.

Even libraries and schools are concerned because the language of this law seems to indicate that books would need to be tested. That is completely unreasonable.

Thrift stores and places like Goodwill Industries would also be adversely affected. Many families rely on aftermarket outlets like thrift stores to purchase gently used clothes and toys. The loss of that resource could be devastating for families.

With so many already losing their jobs, it seems to be counterproductive to put small and micro and home businesses out of business because of a poorly written law which should have been aimed directly at manufacturers and importers.

By the time products reach the distribution chain they should already comply and end users should be able to use those products in good faith.

[DeputyHeadmistress]

I am a parent of several children, including a special needs child. I am a consumer. I sell a few used books, and my daughter is a crafter who was going to be making children's clothing and dollhouse dolls for older children, but is not going to bother with it now.

This bill is killing mosquitoes with an atomic bomb. None of the lead recalls were for anything other than children's jewelry, painted items, and one screenprint. A reasonable lead law would have addressed the items that had been found to have lead, not items that have NEVER been a lead problem.

In reaction, Congress (with your urging) comes down on the entire world of products for children under 12.
12 year olds are not 2 year olds.
A microscope for a 12 year old should not meet the same standards as a sandbox two for a 2 year old.

Nobody seems to have investigated whether testing companies are even interested in testing small batch items. Many small crafters are being told that testing companies don't want to test toys with runs of only a dozen or so items.

The testing is tiresomely and unnecessarily redundant.
Imagine there are seven different small crafters in my town (there are actually many, many hundreds more). They each crochet or knit different items for their own individual cottage industry. Grandma Jones knits dear little baby booties, Ms. Jan crochets quirky stuffed toys, Tiff crochets adorable sweaters for toddlers, Mrs. Doyle specializes in crocheted doll clothes, MeeMaw Marks Makes Crocheted Muffins, Cyndi Lou Who makes funky crocheted hair bands, scrunchies, and bows, and Miss Latedah does heirloom quality knitted or crocheted blankets.

They ALL buy their yarn at the same local shop. So the shop has a special on a scrumpdillylicious shade of peach parfait one week, and they all stock up and make a couple products each using only that lovely peach parfait- the same yarn used by seven different crafters for seven different items (except Cyndi Lou, who made four different styles of hair holders with the same ball of yarn, and Tiff made two sizes of sweaters).

They each have to pay to test their yarn separately, and then when finished, they have to pay to test the finished product again (Cyndy Lou has to pay for four separate finished component tests, and Tiff has to treat two identical sweaters to two expensive tests simply because one is for a two year old and is for a 3 year old)- even if none of the yarns or stuffing ever had lead or phthalates. And then they each have to devise a permanent label with all the info the government wants to attach to their products.

So the same batch of yarn has to be tested at least 20 different times in just my tiny local example. Those seven crafters have to use third party testing after August, so they have to package up their goods and mail them out, imposing additional burdens of time, money, and aggravation- all for the exact same batch of yarn! And the wet testing destroys the product, so small crafters can no longer make one of a kind items, and people who make tiny batches- have to devote as much as 25 percent of their output to creating handcrafted items merely for the purpose of being obliterated in testing.

Multiply it exponentially. Yarn isn't an item likely to have lead- it basically doesn't stick. If it has to be tested at all, the yarn should be tested by the company that makes and dyes the yarn- once, not thousands of tests required by forcing every single person who sells something made from that one run of yarn to run duplicate tests.

If you make a rainbow colored scarf using seven colors of yarns, you have to test each color separately, and then test the finished yarn. If you use the scraps from those same balls of yarn to make a crocheted hat or mittens, you have to do it all over again, because it's a new product. This is absolutely senseless.

Component testing at supplier level should be permitted- it's not. If I am a crafter and buy all my supplies from companies that certify their products to be lead-free, I should not have to test all those components all over again and then the finished product just in case before I can sell it to a parent to give to their ten year old.

This law currently requires the library to test all their childrens' books or not allow children near them. Waxman has informed the Commission they may not exempt books with metal components or plastic components. Books sometimes are stapled. A staple in a book is not going to kill a ten year old. It's not a threat to the life of a 12 year old. Yet under this law- it's a toxic and banned substance, presumed guilty until proven otherwise. Library books are often covered in plastic, contact paper, tape, and have glue and stickers- all items Waxman doesn't want exempted from testing.
By insisting that this law be applied retroactively to product on shelves, Congress (and you) contribute to book banning, an explosion of toxic waste and products for landfills- with no discernable improvement in safety for children.

Congress (and self anointed consumer protection groups) asserted that the law must be retroactive or else consumers would unwittingly buy toys they thought had been tested as required by law as of Feb. 10. I find that... odd. Most consumers do not know about the CPSIA, many of those who do don't understand what it entails. None of them expect component testing and then finished product testing. The public has no such expectations about what Feb. 10th means.

The law is deeply flawed as written, and can only be fixed by Congress overhauling it, not with piecemeal, confusing, and inconsistent exceptions. I am a consumer, and you don't represent me.

[Gerry Rossi]

As now written, this law will not only effectively ban all children's books from sale, but will force libraries and bookstores to close their children's sections

“We are very busy trying to come up with a way to make it not apply to libraries,” said [Emily] Sheketoff [associate executive director of the American Library Association]. But unless she succeeds in lobbying Capitol Hill for an exemption, she believes libraries have two choices under the CPSIA: “Either they take all the children’s books off the shelves,” she says, “or they ban children from the library.”

This law is moronic. It should be repealed and re-written. I'm extremely disappointed that "Consumer Reports", who pose as the ultimate rational consumers, would not admit to the failings of this piece of legislation and would take such an unyielding stand. It's clear that in this case, politics trumps reason.

[Generations Tie Dye]

Our family has relied for years on Consumer Reports for their evaluations of consumer goods and issues, but this time I really think you have it wrong. :-(

As one of the crafters who got into the "biz" (really, I'm a "hobbyist" who might not make it to "business" any more), I can tell you that profit had precious little to do with it. I love to tie-dye. I love turning plain pieces of cotton into colorful wearable works of art. The stuff I like to do for my own kids and for my shop you can't find at Target. The things that makers of organic kids' clothes valued were standards that EXCEEDED those of the same Federal Government whose legislation is about to drown them in unreasonable testing fees.

Make no mistake: a lot of us crafters originally started up to provide parents and kids with SAFE and HIGH-QUALITY ALTERNATIVES to Hannah Montana and SpongeBob as rendered in plastic at Wal-Mart. We WANT our kids' products to be safe. But if my using ONLY certified lead-free garments and dyes STILL results in a product that will require testing at (conservatively) $500 PER GARMENT, in a batch of ONE, I'm one of a lot of people who are out of business and/or scrambling to find another source of income when the economy can least absorb more job losses.

READ those ForbesOnline articles. They're not hysterical, they're not invested in crafting the way I am, or the way some making wooden toys finished with nothing but food-grade beeswax is, or the way crocheters of baby booties from certified lead-free yarn already are. The lead problem showed up in toys from China, and while we have been out there providing BETTER alternatives, we are now going to be out of business if this law stands as is.

The cute organic toys you see on the shelves at Whole Foods? There's a reason they're half-price: they're having the same fire sales a lot of Etsy sellers are having. The CPSC's hands are tied by Congress, while Waxman tries to make himself look good by exhorting the CPSC to make "sensible exemptions." (Those aren't Waxman quotes; those are "air quotes" I'd be doing with my hands in real life.)

I have yet to hear a reasonable (or in fact ANY) explanation as to why I should be able to buy certified lead-free blanks (which is all that'll be available to me, remember), dye them with nothing but lead-free dyes whose MDSD online clearly state their lead levels as zero or FAR FAR below the limit PER JAR of dye powder, let alone per garment (a 2-ounce jar can easily dye a dozen garments), and STILL come up with a product which can so reasonably be assumed to have lead levels high enough to require hundreds of dollars in third-party lab tests (from labs which, BTW, don't seem to want small accounts, preferring instead the Mattels and Fisher-Price's of the world to us piddling peons).

If this law DOES take effect unchanged as of February 10, small children's artisans and crafters, small boutiques who've prided themselves on offering nothing but organic, small-batch kids' items will be SHUT DOWN, possibly for good. The US PIRG and Waxman et al can pat themselves on the back for LIMITING children's choices to the same outsourced dreck from China that caused the scare in the first place.

Is that what we REALLY want and need?

Thank you.

[Paul]

So on Feb 10 children's books in public libraries have to be destroyed, and CR calls that a GOOD thing? Fahrenheit 451 is about to become a reality. Millions, if not billions of taxpayer money - from local, state, and federal levels - are about to be destroyed.

[concerned]

Obviously the this law had good the intentions of protecting children. No one is argueing that that is bad. Everyone wants safe children. But not everyone wants common sense apparently.

Congress failed to realize that childrens products are not made by the few large companies who were actually aware of this law when it was being written. Most small businesses and microbusinesses in manufacturing or retail, as well as libraries and publishers did not know about the law until way too late (yet we get 2 years to prepare for DTV). Too late for them to have enough time to prepare to comply without guidance from Congress and the CPSC. There are very few testing labs in the US and they cannot serve everyone by the deadlines and in many case are not interesting in working with micro-producers.

It makes little sense for thousands of microbusinesses buying the same batch of fabric from the same manufacturer to test and retest that same fabric. Sewing lead already free materials together cannot in any way produce lead, unless you believe alchemy is somehow involved in sewing.

It makes little sense for books to assumed to be dangerous when there is no evidence that plain paper books are. 20 different books printed with the same materials at the same printing plant are quite likely to yeild the same results in testing. Forcing publishers to re-test every finished print run will only result in fewer jobs for authors and illustrators, fewer jobs at publishers, and less variety for consumers, and unproven authors and/or less popular topics never being published.

All of these problems could be fixed with a more common sense approach to testing rules which take account for the fact that small home-based businesses do not have the same production methods or funding as multi-million dollar toy companies who imports their goods.

[MLO]

The ALA (American Library Association) membership is not known for its radicalism for anything but encouraging reading and keeping reading private. That they are saying this law is a poor one and will adversely affect them tells me everything. It is just plain bad law.

[moot]

Remember, the CPSIA does not remove lead from childrens items, it sets a limit of 300ppm by the end of the year. That's 300ppm more than in textiles, wood, and toys made from natural products.

I am a mom, that works from home, making alternative, one-of-a-kind toys.

Not one person would tell you that they want to make leaded, unsafe toys. We don't make, nor do we want to make unsafe toys. We're parents, Grandparents, aunts and uncles. We're just like you, only we're trying to make a living doing what we love, which may not be the same as what you love. But we all love our children. And they inspire our work, too. My own product was made with my own children in mind. Careful to use non-toxic materials, mindful of choking hazards, secure parts and seams.

We are the very people who's hands and minds make some of the only safe toys in America today. Sure, it happens, that a seller may not be mindful of their product. I know that it happens. And I encourage the parts of this law that will stiffen the penalties for those that do not think through their design, materials and safety.

I don't for one minute disagree with the intent of this law. And I understand the need for better regulation and education of smaller businesses. I understand the need for stricter penalties so that safety is more appealing than profits. But, don't make the small people your enemies, dear consumer. We don't crank out a million copies of one toy in a factory in China and only ever see a few prototypes of the original idea.

We work from idea, to production, alone, most of us. We keep our own paperwork, our own finances. We are legal, registered, certified, regulated businesses. And we are a major part of your/our economy.

As we say goodbye to Circuit City and await the next closeout sale, let us all remember what it's like to have an idea, and a dream.

There's no reason that the lead limits, or punishments for negligence, willingly, or unwillingly should be changed in the law. But the testing is redundant. The home producer level poses no risk of lead being introduced into the process.

Thousands of textiles and book components have been tested for lead and found no detection or trace amounts. Well below 10ppm. There is no reason for you to fear books, there is no reason for you to fear textiles. There is no reason for you to fear natural materials and toys.

But you will be at the mercy of companies that have already willingly broken the law, and endangered your children, when you put these small businesses out of work, because no one is helping you understand where the real dangers are.

Hold us accountable. Make us liable. But please, don't force us to test our already safe supplies, again. Let's keep the focus where is should be. Let's focus on paint and plastic. While we're scrambling to retest the same fabrics, stretching labs to their thinnest core and having the CPSC chase down every company they can. Guess who slips through the cracks.

I'm not even calling for a small/micro business exemption. I'm asking to exempt materials that do not pose lead threats.

Thank you for listening.

[Phil]

This point has to be the best I have read:

"In all the cases in the 2007 recalls, the items with lead have come from China and India"

When is the CPSC going to wake up and realize that the problems are not from us here in the US but from the imported stuff from overseas?

Holding US small businesses accountable for testing is just down right wrong!

WAKE UP and repeal this law!

[Karen Clark]

So much wisdom has already been posted, but I'd like to remind everyone that America is a country of innovation. Many many many things that exist today worldwide began in someone's American home or garage, or in a small American company.

If this law is not changed in time, it affects far more than the crafters or small businesses, or the economies of our communities, states and nations. It affects the American way of life, the hope for a better tomorrow that we hold so dearly as one of our core truths, and through our children's increased lack of resources and teaching tools, it affects our future.

What will happen when American children only have access to foreign-made mass produced products? What will happen when, over time, generations grow up thinking that America cannot provide what they need, that we have to go elsewhere? It's already happening with electronics, do we really want to continue that trend with everything our children touch?

Lead limits are fine, I agree with moving toward that. But change this to require *component testing* only so that innovative manufacturers are free to continue imagine and create wonderful things for our children, and therefore our future, using safe or certified raw materials and supplies.

Don't address your concerns to the CPSC, address them to your Congressmen who can address Congress' Committee on Energy and Commerce who pushed this law through. They made a mistake and the rest of Congress, whether due to being in a hurry, mob mentality, or special interest pressure, followed along without considering how devastating this will be.

Can we count on them to DO better, now that they KNOW better? Consumer Reports, please consider the same.
Karen Clark
Story Time Felts

[Kathy M]

Maybe the Consumers Union team needs a lesson in basic civics. The CPSC's hands are tied by the law, they cannot void the law, they cannot modify the law, as they have repeatededly stated. The law itself need serious and extensive revision, which can only be done by Congress. The "unintended consequences" that make this a damaging, disasterous law are monumental. Waxman continues to point at the CPSC, and tries to excuse himself from this disaster. Even members of his committee have urged him to review and open this law back up for discussion. Of course, this would imply that there was poor judgement in passing it - not very easy for a politician! Once my business is forced to close or drastically scale down I will have lots of time (since it is very difficult to find a job right now!), to work on defeating those members of Congress who have decided the "little guy" or "little business" don't matter!