Mothering Forum banner

If you support WAHM's and small companies this will affect YOU!

30K views 405 replies 114 participants last post by  janhunt 
#1 ·
It's being called National Bankruptcy Day. To make a long, long story short:
The Consumer Product Safety Commission and Congress have just passed a law which requires ALL MAKERS of CHILDRENS' PRODUCTS in the US and importing to the US to have their products (and components) tested by a CPSC-certified, Third-party testing laboratory FOR LEAD CONTENT.

On Feb 10, 2009, all businesses which do not comply with said testing (which is incredibly expensive and unecessary for textiles as fabric does not contain lead) will be in violation of federal law, guilty of selling banned products and subject to fines and jail time. This affects ALL of us. WAHMs, Etsy sellers, crafters, wooden and organic toy companies, baby carriers, ect. On Feb 10th, the handcrafted movement dies. WAHMs are out of business. The economy sinks even lower.

If it sounds unbelievable, believe it. Here are several links for you to consume. The kids industry has been slow to realize how serious this ruling is because it sounds so ridiculous. But it is real, and incredibly sad.

A good summary of the situation from an industry leader: http://www.fashion-incubator.com/arc...ankruptcy-day/

Actual Cpsc law: http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/legislation.html

Easi(er) to read summary of law: http://www.apparelandfootwear.org/re...mary080902.pdf

Petition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/e...SIA/index.html

Please, please take action on this. Call and write and petition and email.

Thanks,
Amy
 
See less See more
#27 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post
"What happens now with cloth diapers? Should I be stocking up on diaper covers and cloth diaper accessories before feb?"

I don't know... Right now I understand that the RDA has hired a lawyer to look into if for them. If I find out anymore I will let ya'll know.

I don't know how much the gov is really interested in going after wahm's but a lot of them are scared because this involves criminal penalties, including jail time from what I understand, and some of them are already talking about closing up shop.

I don't think blogging about toys is an issue. The main focus is on manufacturers and retailers. Manufacturers must be able to prove, by third party testing, that they are in compliance with the law and retailers must prove with certificates from the manufacturers that anything they are selling is in compliance with the law.
It might not be the government that has an issue with wahm's -- but I have been told by a wholesaler that the big box companies are pushing to have children's small clothing lines, toddler and under inclusive in the act. That of course is cloth diapers.

The issue and the article if presented in a factual manner here about content, do walk hand in hand.
 
#28 ·
"So why should grandpa, who makes toy trucks, test the paint he bought at the local hardware store, when the hardware store had to have it tested before they could sell it in the first place."

He shouldn't but...

From my understanding of the law, what would happen in this case is that...

1)Paint manufacturer is exempt from this particular law because the paint is not "intended for children under 12". (There may be other testing laws they have to follow. See note below.)

2)The hardware store is also exempt, because again this is not a product manufactured specifically for children.

3)Grandpa is not exempt. *He* is manufacturing a toy specifically for children 12 and under. Therefore he is required to have said product - the full product, not just components of it, third party tested for compliance with the law.

4)If Grandpa wholesales to a retailer, then the retailer must be able to furnish a certificate from Grandpa stating that the toy has been third party tested and in compliance with the law.

Note: The issue with materials testing as far as I understand has to do with preexisting laws in regards to fabrics. Certain fabrics must be fire-retardant and if a manufacturer is using these fabrics, they must provide proof both of the fabric being in compliance with the law (presumably the fabric manufacturer would provide this) *and* they must have the product tested after it is complete to comply with the new law.

Does that make any sense? (I am not a lawyer or anything so don't take this as professional advice. This is just what I can garner from listening to the talk amongst cd wahm's.) I am still hoping that this is all a big mistake and we are reading too much into it, but the more I hear the more unlikely I find that to be.
 
#30 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by aniT View Post
I don't WANT my fabrics flame retarded and is pisses me off that the government forces me/my family to sleep in/wear toxic chemicals.
:

Grumble grumble grumble grumble
: they protect us from the off chance that our clothing catches on fire by covering us in chemicals that are most definitely toxic. i love the logic.
 
#35 ·
This legislation is not only going to hurt small guys but medium and big guys as well. This means EVERYONE cannot sell products that aren't tested to new levels after 2/10/09. Anyone who does will be subject to fines and felony charges.

Sure, bigger corporations are more likely to afford testing. But, they often carry hundreds, if not thousands of individual items.

An additional enormous problem is this legislation prohibts sale of current inventory. That means stores can't selll what they have in stock. Manufacturers can't ship what they have in stock. All of those goods must be disposed of. Imagine every store you know disposing of ALL of their children's goods. Astonishing.

Once all of those stores dispose of the goods they must purchase new goods. But, manufacturers won't have goods in stock which will be in compliance because time is needed to test the products. Meanwhile, business will go out of business while waiting for new product. Little guys and big guys. And folks will be out of work and more folks will require public assistance.

Please, please, contact your legislators. It is important we have safe goods for children. It is also important that we keep the economy moving (especially in these times) and by forcing businesses to stop selling product we will cause a huge slowdown.
 
#37 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by urklemama View Post
Why isn't there anything on the etsy homepage about this?
There are a few threads on the Etsy forums about this, but from what I've read, Etsy Admin hasn't spoken up with any official comment about CPSIA yet.


Here is an Etsy thread calling for volunteers to flood the phones of the members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection about this: http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.ph...5945166&page=1
 
#38 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by aniT View Post
You know.. most small businesses and WHAM's get their supplies from the US. Theoretically they should have been tested by the supplier before they were sold.

So why should grandpa, who makes toy trucks, test the paint he bought at the local hardware store, when the hardware store had to have it tested before they could sell it in the first place.
Some paint manufacturers do make "kid's paint" that is in bright cheery colors for kid's rooms.
 
#41 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Flor View Post
If my rep isn't on the committee, who should I write to? A random rep, the entire committee, ?? Email or snail mail?
There was a link for questions a couple posts up. I went there and posted my comment/question. It is supposed to go straight to the committee who I believe is meeting today.
 
#42 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by aniT View Post
There was a link for questions a couple posts up. I went there and posted my comment/question. It is supposed to go straight to the committee who I believe is meeting today.
Oh I hope so, and I hope they got my very short but to the point comment on how they are royally screwing over the small business owner but not doing a lot to change things nationwide.
 
#43 ·
I'm sorry that it looks like Mothering is not in support of small advertisers because of our praise for the CPSIA in the November/December issue. This is not the case. We copyedited Mindy's article in July, three months after the bill was passed, and printed the issue in early September. We were praising the action to ban lead and phthalates, but were not aware then of the impact of the law on small businesses. We have since been made aware of this by our advertisers and are putting up an action alert today about the oversight hearing Wednesday in Washington on the CPSIA. Pasted below is the info I researched on Friday for the action. It will be with the action alert on the site this afternoon. Please encourage everyone you know to contact their representatives, especially those representatives who sit on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection or to go to Washington. We want to do everything we can to change this bill or to have it rescinded so please email me directly about any action we should put on the site. This bill is the usual practice of appearing to look good for the consumer, while still supporting big business at the expense of our children. This law just makes it harder for the companies that are already doing the right thing to keep doing it. Please also check out the action at Moms Rising regarding the fact that the lead and phthalate tainted products are staying on the shelf until February. Thank you for letting me know your concerns.

Please contact your congressional representatives regarding the burden that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) places on small manufacturers. Below is a list of the committee members who will hold an oversight hearing entitled, "Implementation of the CPSIA: Urgent Questions about Application Dates, Testing and Certification, and Protecting Children" on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
(Ratio: 16-13)
 Bobby L. Rush (IL), Chairman
Jan Schakowsky, IL, Vice ChairEd Whitfield, KY, Ranking Member*
G. K. Butterfield, NC Cliff Stearns, FL
John Barrow, GA Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, MS
Baron P. Hill, IN Vito Fossella, NY
Edward J. Markey, MA George Radanovich, CA
Rick Boucher, VA Joseph R. Pitts, PA
Edolphus Towns, NY Mary Bono Mack, CA
Diana DeGette, CO Lee Terry, NE
Charles A. Gonzalez, TX Sue Wilkins Myrick, NC
Mike Ross, AR John Sullivan, OK***
Darlene Hooley, OR Michael C. Burgess, TX
Anthony D. Weiner, NY Marsha Blackburn, TN
Jim Matheson, UT Joe Barton, TX (Ex Officio)
Charlie Melancon, LA
John D. Dingell (Ex Officio)

To contact your representatives, go to

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

To contact your senators, go to

http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

Ask Acting Chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Honorable Nancy Nord, to uphold the fairness of the CPSIA. She made the following statement on April 14, 2008
"The new product safety legislation signed into law today is a victory for parents and consumers. New regulatory authorities and enforcement tools, many of which I asked of Congress last year, will make it easier for CPSC to find and recall unsafe products made around the world. CPSC is ready to implement the law fully, fairly and in a way that bolsters the safety of children's products and increases consumer confidence."

Contact her at the CPSC:

info@cpsc.gov
Phone: 301-504-7923
Fax: 301-504-0124
 
#44 ·
Sorry the list is scrambled. It's supposed to be two columns. They say that the most effective action is to call or email your own representative to tell her or him your concerns. You can call your local office or the Washington office. Both of those numbers will be on the links in my post before. We decided not to do a group action because the individual contacts are given more weight.
 
#46 ·
Thank you for the response Peggy. I did not in anyway mean to imply that you were against small business and am sorry if it came across that way. Clearly the article was promoting small, safe businesses. After thinking it through last night, I thought it was probably a case of the article already being sent to print *before* all of this stuff about it affecting small business owners came out and of course there is nothing you can do about that.
 
#48 ·
This seems ridiculous. $4,000 per toy? Not even Fisher Price could afford that. Some of this must be misinformation.

Unfortunately I can't translate the "legalese" of the new law as posted on the CPSC website. I couldn't get through the first paragraph.

The only thing I can think of that would change about handmade toys is that they would have to change their name to "novelty" instead of "toy." They can't be banned from selling the actual product, just the product under the label "toy." You can sell just about anything if it's got the right label.

I mean, we are talking about every.single. handmade toy website, boutique, craft fair, farmer's market, garage sale, booth vendor, etc. being shut down. I don't see how this is likely or even possible.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top