Thanks for trying to address this incredibly confusing issue. Too bad the CPSC's spokesperson said a whole lot of nothin'.

If I understand her correctly, it WILL be illegal for anyone (resellers included) to sell used toys that have lead in them, and it IS incumbent upon the reseller to test their wares for lead (or hire someone to do it, at their own expense). But the CPSC is currently focusing its attention elsewhere, so resellers shouldn't panic and go out of business. Until, of course, the CPSC decides to chance its enforcement focus and goes after that first reseller for civil penalties for violating the law.

I understand the impetus behind this law, but it seems to me to have been hastily written and poorly thought-out. Of course, that's not the CPSC's fault; it can only do so much with what Congress gives it. I hope someone wakes up and decides to change the law to reflect the unintended impact it's having on small retailers and resellers.

So what we have here is an ambiguous law that criminalizes every retail store in America along with anybody that has ever had a yard sale. Then there is this tiny little enforcement agency that can only apply the law arbitrarily at best, and most likely, will decide which retail store to audit based on the company's campaign contributions made to political candidates during the last election cycle. Can you say Walmart?

Obviously, despite the consumer protection nuance to this law, its main intent is to feed more lawyers and provide paybacks for the manufacturer of the XRF technology. Their lobbyist earned their paycheck, and the couple of guys that ponied up a few bucks to watch the XRF training video will be gainfully employed.

Now Congress only needs to create 2,999,999,995 more new jobs to get this economy rolling again.

Yes we can!

Gee whiz. I wonder how did we survived childhood in the sixties, without all of these rules? Remember when Mattel used to make Creepy Crawlers? What about the tool sets for kids? I never read a story about someone trying to saw a kid in two. If some kid is stupid enough to put his tongue on a hot plate or can't figure out how to use a pair of pliers, it's called Darwinism.

More protection from something that should be ade here in the states, but because it isn't economically feasible or environmentally friendly, the work is shipped overseas.

So now what am I supposed to do with all my children's old toys, books and clothes? In the past, I have passed them along or donated them. Am I supposed to just throw them away if I can't verify the lead levels? Am I supposed to research each item to see if it safe to donate?

I've got to say, his comments about cribs really make me mad. We bought a Delta Love crib in 2005 when my son was born--it was rated a Consumer Reports best buy and one of the safest they tested. I did my homework--checked all the recalls, and even bought a soda can like they recommend to check for an entrapment hazard. This summer, it was recalled because the drop side can drop all the way to the floor and entrap and kill the baby. So now that I'm pregnant again and due in March, I'm supposed to foot the bill for another crib? Not only that, but I'm supposed to dole out several hundred dollars to the very same companies that can't seem to figure out how to make a safe crib? I certainly didn't expect to be buying a second crib for my second child, and I'm appalled that it doesn't seem like I can get any kind of refund for a product that was supposed to last for more than one kid. At this point, after all the recalls, I wonder if the baby would be safer sleeping on the floor!

It's crazy. Congress makes laws, and then no one EVER EVER goes back to see how they work - if the money spent on them is worthwhile, etc etc. They just do what they do and everyone else be d***ed.
It's like years ago when mortgage brokers told the state legislature (of GA) that they would not make loans if they passed a certain law. The law passed, many people could not get a loan for a house (or was the legislature prescient?). Then the law was repealed.
The politicians think they have all the answers, when few of them have ever worked in the business world - and so they have no idea what the impact is of what they do (the laws of unintended consequences are larger than the laws of congress).
Why couldn't they pass a law that said something less stringent? We'd like for you to test your products...so if you do - then put a tag that says you have. Otherwise, put a tag on there that indicates you are relatively certain that the product doesn't have lead...but it hasn't actually been tested.
I like what they said on some radio show, since the law only refers to stuff for kids. Put something on the product that is easy to take off - something like porn or whatnot - to ensure that it is NOT a 'children's product. Then the parent or whoever can take the 'non children piece' off easily, and all is well.

sjneal - no, you're not supposed to buy a new crib; you're supposed to just get the safety peg installed and keep using your existing one. See http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09017.html

Yes, the rules are often silly; it's lawyers covering their tails more than anything else. But every now and then they point out something important.

Army Brat, thanks for the link for the fix. We sent our info for the fix kit. I was referring to the quote in the story, "Never use a recalled crib. There is a clear risk. No one should put their baby at risk by using a recalled crib."

Well, my crib was recalled, and rather than refund me the $300 or so I spent on it, Delta is sending me some cure-all plastic pegs. But, the tone of Ms. Vallese's comment clearly implies that she thinks I'm putting my baby in danger by using a recalled crib. That's what makes me mad. I'd much rather they refund my money and let me buy a new one, but with such an overwhelming number of crib recalls lately, how are you supposed to choose a safe one if mine even fooled the good folks at Consumer Reports?

Sorry. I hope no one, especially Army Brat, takes this as a dig at anyone but the former CPSC flack. It's hard when you carefully buy big-ticket items thinking they'll last through more than one kid and the industry making the defective products doesn't suffer any consequences or make any real attempt to prove their new products are safer than the old ones.

sjneal - I apologize for the tone of my own posting - it wasn't meant to be anywhere near as negative as it came out. I understand your frustration with some of these recalls/product pronouncements. I plead guilty to generally having ignored them, myself. When I was notified, I looked into it, and if it didn't look too risky to me, I just went on with life. In this litigious society I understand why they can get so dramatic, but heck, no life is without risk.

"Anyone who is selling a product or introducing it into a stream of commerce needs to pay attention to safety. And understand that when they pass a product along they are doing it in good faith that there isn’t a high level of risk with the product they are passing along. If you’re friend to friend, that’s an exchange between two people who trust each other."

LOL!!!!

So what we have here is an ambiguous law that criminalizes every retail store in America along with anybody that has ever had a yard sale.

Posted by: WhackyWeasel | January 27, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Is this a criminal law? Link, please.

Thank you for this article. I've been hoping to hear more on the CPSIA from The Washington Post. There's a lot of information to digest here. Sadly, some of the information given by Ms. Vallese, who no longer speaks officially for the CPSC, is just plain wrong.

One HUGE area that was barely touched on by either this article or Julie Vallese was the small manufacturer. There are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of small companies (with a handful of employees each), stay-at-home moms and other cottage industries who make children's items to help feed their families, and even though the CPSC has repeatedly said that this law isn't aimed at them, it still APPLIES to them. And it is devastatingly EXPENSIVE.

This law as written REQUIRES that ALL children's items - books, toys, bikes, clothing, school supplies and materials, EVERYTHING intended for 12 and under - be tested by third-party labs as of February 10 (for apparel, the effective date is in August). This is NOT XRF testing. Those of us who make children's clothing can use the XRF technology to test for lead till August; at that time, if not amended, 3rd-party lab testing will be required, and one item per batch will basically need to be destroyed to test it for safety. XRF is already pricey: I can rent an XRF gun for "only" $1000 a week, or just one day for $400. The third-party testing, though, can come in at hundreds of dollars PER TEST, with multiple tests on an item, one for EACH and EVERY component.

In theory, this is great. I'm a mom, I want my kids' things to be safe. But if I'm already using lead-free cotton garment blanks (they'll have to be certified lead-free to be sold to me, remember) and tie-dye them with lead-free dyes (The Material Safety Data Sheets are readily available for those online, with lead content listed), I am STILL expected to fork over hundreds of dollars to test EACH component. That's one tee and each color of dye tested separately, for a tee that I dye in a "batch" of ONE. At $100 per test (a conservative estimate), a shirt with 4 colors will cost $500 to test and certify - and will be destroyed in the process.

A number of smaller crafters have taken bids for third-party testing to see if it could possibly be made affordable for them; almost without exception (so far, anyway), these labs are not interested in small business accounts, and generally decline to take it on in the first place. Even if we TRIED to get this testing done on our things, in other words, we CAN'T.

Julie, the *former* CPSC spokesperson, also said above, "And it has been the opinion of the general counsel, because Congress used that word, that it applies to those products manufactured after Feb. 10." Cheryl Falvey, General Counsel, has said otherwise, that anything on the shelves as of February 10th has to be certified. That means anything I've already made, even though it's compliant NOW, will be considered "hazardous" in two weeks.

This will affect ANY small crafter with their own brick-and-mortar store, website, or an Etsy or eBay shop, including those who got into business precisely because of the lead scare: they wanted to make safer, higher-quality items available for kids and for parents who were searching for alternatives. The way this law is written, even the small companies who make organic undyed unbleached kids' clothes will need to fork over the same fees for testing something that's always had a higher level of safety and is inherently lead-free to begin with. Artisans who use wood straight from the tree to the workshop and finish it with nothing other than food-grade beeswax are in the same boat. And the specialty toy and clothing boutiques who currently offer higher-quality, even heirloom-quality items, are not ordering them from the smaller manufacturers unless those makers can provide certification they can't even afford. The adorable organic toys and clothes at Whole Foods? Kiss them goodbye if their makers can't absorb the cost of the testing.

German toymaker Selecta (think Haba toys), whose products have exceeded US standards for years, are pulling out of the US market entirely rather than go through expensive testing that will prove what they already know from their own testing: they make safe stuff too.

The likely scenario now is that many of the high-quality small-batch items that many parents seek out for their children will simply not be available in the US in two short weeks. Makers of children's items are having fire sales at Etsy while wondering how they're going to support their families and themselves and what the heck they're going to legally be able to do with their "hazardous" merchandise.

Let me be clear: Smaller-batch artisans and crafters of children's items WANT their products to be safe for children. Lots of them got into business to EXCEED U.S. standards of safety in the first place. Many are parents and grandparents who chose to be at home with their children and make these products for income in lieu of working outside the home. Those kinds of crafters would benefit HUGELY from a provision that would allow them to test components before making items, so that one bolt of fabric and the package of elastic that are certified would be considered safe for garments made from it; this currently isn't the case; final product testing is the reality, and the cost is driving them out of business at a time when the economy can least absorb more job losses.

For more reading from a far less subjective source, see here: http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/cpsia-waxman-cpsc-oped-cx_wo_0122olson.html and here: http://www.thesmartmama.com/bg/

Thanks for reading.

"Is this a criminal law? Link, please."

Actually, Jezebel3, it IS a criminal law. If I were caught selling uncertified children's items after February 10th, I could be liable for jail time and fines STARTNG AT $100,000. There are also provisions for whistleblower protection, meaning that a competitor could report me if I sold uncertified merchandise, and the CPSC could investigate me the way they would investigate Mattel or Fisher Price.

You can start at the CPSC's own website and sort through the entire 62-page (or is it 63?) law. It was enacted Summer 2008. Start here: http://cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html