New Law? Children's books banned???? - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 56 Old 01-10-2009, 01:32 AM
 
riverscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: back where I belong
Posts: 2,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Interesting article concerning books and libraries.

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/74...rom-libraries/

Quote:
Historically, books have been considered more dangerous to read than to eat. Regardless, a memo from the CPSC, issued the day before Christmas Eve, explicitly quashed any hope that books might escape the new law.

coolshine.gif

riverscout is offline  
#32 of 56 Old 01-10-2009, 02:12 AM
 
Mizelenius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Lalaland
Posts: 7,046
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is what my DD came up with when she read a blog entry about this issue:

One day in Tulip's house two other cats named Mango and Wynona came
in. "Guess what?" said Tulip. "What?" said Wynona excitedly. "Is it
that your owner is going to give us a big box of treats for the week?"
"No!" said Tulip. "Let me guess again," said Wynona. "Oh, please!
Can I just tell you?" said Tulip. "Mango, do you know it?" "No."

"Well, the government said that we can't buy or sell used toys and
clothes anymore!" Tulip explained. "Well, that's good," said Wynona.
"Don't you know that if you don't recycle things they go into a
landfill?" said Tulip. "But I don't LIKE old clothes and toys!" said
Wynona. "What does it matter?" said Tulip. "Then we will have to make
more landfills because we won't be able to recycle those things." "So
what! I don't like recycling!" said Wynona. "It's easier to just
throw stuff in the garbage!" "But it's BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!"
shouted Tulip. "Blah, blah, blah. Yeah, right," said Mango.

"And that means more animals have to move out of their habitats for more
landfills," continued Tulip. "How about fish? Do fish have to move
out of their habitat?" asked Wynona. "That would mean an easy
dinner." "No, silly! You know—like land animals do," said Tulip. "Do
skunks have to?" asked Wynona. "Maybe," said Tulip. "Good, because
I don't like skunks! They're stinky!" said Wynona. "But they are
actually sort of cute!" said Tulip. "Really?" said Wynona. "Really,"
assured Tulip.

"But do you know something?" said Wynona. "Have you
ever been to a thrift store?" interrupted Tulip. "Yes! I love thrift
stores!" said Wynona. "Well, have you ever bought anything there?"
continued Tulip. "Yes—I bought a lot of toys there." "Do you ever
buy clothes there?" "Yeah! The clothes there are pretty!" "Then you
are buying old clothes and toys!" "MEOW!!!!!!" screamed Wynona. "Now
listen," continued Wynona, "I am going home right now to throw those
clothes and toys away." "Well, OK, but just remember that your
favorite playground might be turned into a landfill. Just think about
no recycling. We probably wouldn't have things we really
like—including newspapers because they are made out of recycled
paper," said Tulip. "Well, I really like to read the newspaper, you
know," said Wynona thoughtfully. "Maybe I'll just keep those clothes!"

 2/02, 4/05, 2/07, 11/09, and EDD 12/25/11 wave.gif

 

 

Mizelenius is offline  
#33 of 56 Old 01-10-2009, 02:58 AM
 
junipermuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeldamomma View Post
The law has closed this loophole-- here is a quote:


So, if a product is commonly recognized as a book for children, the law may apply (and I wouldn't want to volunteer to be the test case).
However I would assume that at least some used books that at one time were intended for children are now old enough to be considered a collector's item, especially considering that it would have no current advertising, and probably no original packaging, so really the seller's word that the item is a collector's item would really be all that was needed to make it a collector's item.

Jennifer, mama to darling dancing Juliette, and sweet baby Jameson
junipermuse is offline  
#34 of 56 Old 01-10-2009, 11:21 AM
 
ahdoula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: up up up state NY
Posts: 857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So are we suppose to be snatching up all the used children's books we can now? Are children's book, even new ones, going to become HTF because publishers cannot comply?
ahdoula is offline  
#35 of 56 Old 01-10-2009, 11:42 AM
 
riverscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: back where I belong
Posts: 2,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahdoula View Post
Are children's book, even new ones, going to become HTF because publishers cannot comply?
I think temporarily, yes.

According to the article I posted earlier:

Quote:
To make matters worse, even publishers that have already had their products tested for lead will be forced to retest. In the same memo, existing test results based on “soluble lead” — a measure of whether lead will migrate out of a product — were rejected by the CPSC because they did not measure “total lead content.”

<snip>

Regardless of whether libraries and schools are affected, the CPSIA is poised to take a massive bite out of the book industry. Large retailers are beginning to demand that publishers comply, even in advance of the law’s deadline. This Wednesday, Amazon.com sent a general letter informing its vendors that, if they did not certify their products by January 15, the items would be returned at the sellers’ expense.

coolshine.gif

riverscout is offline  
#36 of 56 Old 01-10-2009, 12:26 PM
 
PassionateWriter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
he book issue is overblown....what about schools?
PassionateWriter is offline  
#37 of 56 Old 01-10-2009, 01:44 PM
 
HikeYosemite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 328
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Someone sent me this update. Sorry if it was already posted; I didn't read all responses:

Here is the latest info that I have - This WAS an accurate report - the CPSC clarified the CPSIA to allow the sale of used children's items! Here is a link to the CPSC update: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html
HikeYosemite is offline  
#38 of 56 Old 01-10-2009, 02:09 PM
 
PGTlatte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago far NWS
Posts: 1,991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The CPSC published a bulletin that resale items will not have to be tested for lead but the seller can still be subject to civil and criminal penalties and fines if they accidentally sell something that exceeds the NEW lead limits.

The law has not yet been clarified to exclude or protect libraries. This still needs to happen.

DS1 March 2003DS2 Sept 2005,
and 3 , in our happy secular
PGTlatte is offline  
#39 of 56 Old 01-10-2009, 02:11 PM
 
Jackpackbaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is horrible! I agree with the idea and intent of the law but not the blanket use of such. I can't believe this is even happening really. What a travesty.
Jackpackbaby is offline  
#40 of 56 Old 01-10-2009, 03:39 PM
 
zeldamomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackpackbaby View Post
This is horrible! I agree with the idea and intent of the law but not the blanket use of such. I can't believe this is even happening really. What a travesty.
I'm actually encouraged by clarifications that have been coming out. It seems like the CPSC is trying to figure out how to meet the intent of the law without doing to much damage. My parents sell handmade goods, some of which might be covered by the law, and they're waiting for clarification of the law through their representative. That might be a route for some other sellers to determine what is and is not covered.

ZM
zeldamomma is offline  
#41 of 56 Old 01-10-2009, 03:59 PM
 
hummingmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
One of the most troublesome aspects of this law is that it requires manufacturers to determine the total lead levels of the finished products, not just the component parts. So, even if a publisher is using the same papers and inks for all of their books, they would have to get testing and certification on every.single.title.
hummingmom is offline  
#42 of 56 Old 01-11-2009, 10:46 AM
 
HikeYosemite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 328
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It seems like the only way for this law to work and not produce a huge headache and an incredible amount of waste would be to exempt all products already on shelves (and to exempt homemade items). Sellers of homemade items could hand buyers a non-liability form when they sell the item--that is, the buyer willingly acknowledges that they are buying something for a child that has not been tested for lead, etc. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like an option like this should be offered.
HikeYosemite is offline  
#43 of 56 Old 01-11-2009, 12:43 PM
 
BunnySlippers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fluffierville
Posts: 2,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Wow. That is going to have major implications world-wide, but isnt going lead-free the goal we all want?
Im confused
(for real)

Decluttering 500/2010
BunnySlippers is offline  
#44 of 56 Old 01-11-2009, 02:22 PM
 
PGTlatte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago far NWS
Posts: 1,991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The law is very poorly written. Small and family businesses that make small quantities of children's products instead of mass-producing them cannot financially survive the lead testing requirements as they are now written.

Only Congress can change it.

The more US Senators and Representatives hear from people, the more likely they are to do something to fix it.

There is also an open public commment on the third party testing of *components*, instead of whole final products. They are taking comments untiil January 30.

This blog has the specific instructions for emailing a public comment in. They are also available on the CPSC website but harder to find.

http://joeyandaleethea.typepad.com/b...the-cpsia.html

Here is the pdf about the request for public comments:

http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/Comp...tsComments.pdf

Quotes from this document of particular interest:

"The Commission staff invites comments on Section 102 of the CPSIA, Mandatory Third- Party Testing for Certain Children’s Products. The staff requests comments specifically on third-party testing of component parts "

"Given the schedule for implementation of the third-party testing requirements, the staff is interested in comments and information regarding:"
"• How the risk of introducing non-compliant product into the marketplace would be affected by permitting third-party testing of the component parts of a consumer product versus third-party testing of the finished consumer product.
• The conditions and or circumstances, if any, that should be considered in allowing third-party testing of component parts.
• The conditions, if any, under which supplier third-party testing of raw materials or components should be acceptable."
"• Whether consideration of third-party testing of component parts should be given for any particular industry groups or particular component parts and materials. Explain what it is about these industries, component parts, and/or materials that make them uniquely suited to this approach."

This is what small businesses need to be allowed to do - submit certificates that all of the component parts they use have been tested and are compliant, instead of having to pay for the third party testing of their entire line of finished products, each separate product they make, in every variation, having every part of it tested. It would make so much more sense for each component they use to be tested once, and for the manufacturer who mass-produces that component to be the one to do it and supply the certificates of compliance to those who purchase the components from them.

This public comment period is a chance for the public to be heard on this.

DS1 March 2003DS2 Sept 2005,
and 3 , in our happy secular
PGTlatte is offline  
#45 of 56 Old 01-11-2009, 02:38 PM
 
filiadeluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So I guess selling or buying children's items on Craigslist or eBay are going to be banned unless it was released after X time frame? Ugh.

-
filiadeluna is offline  
#46 of 56 Old 01-11-2009, 03:41 PM
 
PGTlatte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago far NWS
Posts: 1,991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Not now, because the CPSC released a bulletin on Jan 8 removing the lead testing requirement for resale items:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by filiadeluna View Post
So I guess selling or buying children's items on Craigslist or eBay are going to be banned unless it was released after X time frame? Ugh.

DS1 March 2003DS2 Sept 2005,
and 3 , in our happy secular
PGTlatte is offline  
#47 of 56 Old 01-13-2009, 12:26 PM
 
netgyks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So if I sell some clothing through a local mother's group that has a big bi-annual sale at the fairgrounds and someone tests it and it exceeds limits, I'm out $10k?
netgyks is offline  
#48 of 56 Old 01-13-2009, 02:43 PM
 
momma-d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ottawa ON
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Talk about a law of unintended consequences! While the intent is in the right place, I have to agree with everyone here that it is a poorly written and overly far-reaching law. It just seems like congress didn't think it through at all. Although I've moved out of the States to Canada, and am not as affected by this law as I would've been had I not moved, I still have written and called to oppose this. Let's hope the re-consideration they're giving it will result in some change, some loosening of parameters.

Diana. Wife and partner to Jon since 11/04. Home-birthing, natural milky momma to Katie Annalie - 08/06 and Evan Frederick - 06/09
grouphug.gif

designer/manufacturer of: http://www.onyababy.com

momma-d is offline  
#49 of 56 Old 01-14-2009, 05:07 PM
 
KSlager's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
KSlager is offline  
#50 of 56 Old 01-14-2009, 05:52 PM
 
Ruthla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 47,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong- but it sounds to me like this law only applies to the SALE of items, not gifting or donating them.

So if I sell an old toy for 25 cents, and that toy turns out to contain lead, then I could face a fine of up to $10,000. But, if I give a bag of toys away for free, I haven't *sold* anything, and this law simply doesn't apply.

And I wouldn't want the law to do away with the "under 12" wording. I wouldn't want legislation that only helps small makers of toys for older kids but leaves babytoy makers vulnerable. Nor do I want my 7yo or 12yo playing with lead-containing toys, even though we're well past the "toys in the mouth" stage. I don't know how much lead can be absorbed throught the skin, hands often end up in the mouth anyway, sometimes they eat without washing hands first, etc.

Ruth, single mommy to Leah, 19 (in Israel for another school year), Hannah, 18 (commuting to college), and Jack, 12(homeschooled)
Ruthla is offline  
#51 of 56 Old 01-14-2009, 07:17 PM
 
Charityart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Charityart is offline  
#52 of 56 Old 01-14-2009, 09:03 PM
 
MyLittleWonders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Always learning something new.
Posts: 8,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think the part that is going un(der)reported about that clarification is that yes, resale shops do not have to have their merchandise tested, but they also cannot sell things that exceed the new lead standards, and can be fined if they do. So, how are they to know without testing? And what if they don't test, because they are not required to, and sold something they had no idea contained lead (a screen-printed T-shirt maybe?), and suddenly were fined $10,000 because of it? It still leaves them open to prosecution, it seems to me. And, like Ruth asked previously, what about those who sell things at a garage sale?

 Me + dh = heartbeat.gif ds (7/01), ds (11/03), ds (6/06)
and dd born 11/21/10 - our T21 SuperBaby ribbluyel.gif heartbeat.gif
MyLittleWonders is offline  
#53 of 56 Old 01-15-2009, 10:23 AM
 
HikeYosemite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 328
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders View Post
I think the part that is going un(der)reported about that clarification is that yes, resale shops do not have to have their merchandise tested, but they also cannot sell things that exceed the new lead standards, and can be fined if they do. So, how are they to know without testing? And what if they don't test, because they are not required to, and sold something they had no idea contained lead (a screen-printed T-shirt maybe?), and suddenly were fined $10,000 because of it? It still leaves them open to prosecution, it seems to me. And, like Ruth asked previously, what about those who sell things at a garage sale?
Although theoretically this is still a matter of concern, the last paragraph of that Snopes article cited above addresses this. The thrift stores/resale shops should avoid selling items that are likely to contain lead/phthalates and likely will not be targeted for investigation if they are not blatantly ignoring this warning. And how likely is it that an individual will buy something at a thrift store then go to the expense of having it tested?

Again, I'm wondering if it would be possible to allow resale shops to have customers sign some kind of non-liability form that acknowledges that they are buying used, untested items and are willing to accept the risk involved with that (assuming, that is, that the thrift stores still attempt to avoid items at high risk for conaining lead and phthalates).
HikeYosemite is offline  
#54 of 56 Old 01-15-2009, 03:14 PM
 
Mymble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: It's spring in NYC!
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There's been a bit of discussion about that snopes page, there is some misinformation. Most importantly, they get a major fact wrong -- they say the law applies to items MADE after Feb 10th, when it fact it applies to all items SOLD after Feb 10th. Just seeing that sentence made me lose a massive amount of faith in snopes.com! That's a huge difference. They also should not make guessing at how the law will be enforced, they're not lawyers or safety experts. I don't think they're qualified to make any interpretations of any law as they've done here.

Also, it's not $10,000 -- it's up to $100,000 and/or 5 years in jail. Not that I think that's going to be applied to a second-hand store, but it's within the scope of the law to do so.

Ruthla -- the law says you cannot sell or distribute, i.e. give away. This includes, for example, making blankets for project linus. Clothing swaps. Me giving you our outgrown toys. It's ridiculous.

Whoops, sounds like the sick baby is up!! Sorry if this is a little abrupt, can't edit any longer!
Mymble is offline  
#55 of 56 Old 01-16-2009, 12:24 AM
 
heket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ruling my own Library
Posts: 2,760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
FYI- this law is also a problem for public libraries:
http://www.wo.ala.org/districtdispatch/?p=1322
heket is offline  
#56 of 56 Old 01-16-2009, 03:25 AM
 
Devaskyla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: in my great new home
Posts: 4,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
California passed a law that will ban ALL incandecent light bulbs in the entire state taking effect in 2010. A good law you say. It's time for everyone to use the energy saving light bulbs. Guess what? The head lights in your car are incandecent. So is the light bulb in your refrigerator and your oven. Come 2010, these will all be banned in California.
Not to mention fluorescent lights are loaded with mercury & *far* worse for the environment than incandecents. Plus all the people who get sick from fluorescent lights. It's ridiculous. Talk about rushing in without thinking.

mom to all boys B: 08/01ribboncesarean.gif,  C: 07/05 uc.jpg, N: 03/09 uc.jpg, M: 01/12 uc.jpg and far too many lost onesintactlact.gifsaynovax.gif

Devaskyla is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off