|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.|
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,"
"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
Are children's book, even new ones, going to become HTF because publishers cannot comply?
According to the article I posted earlier:
|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.”
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.
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
The law has not yet been clarified to exclude or protect libraries. This still needs to happen.
and 3 , in our happy secular
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.
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.
Here is the pdf about the request for public comments:
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.
and 3 , in our happy secular
and 3 , in our happy secular
Diana. Wife and partner to Jon since 11/04. Home-birthing, natural milky momma to Katie Annalie - 08/06 and Evan Frederick - 06/09
designer/manufacturer of: http://www.onyababy.com
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 3 quasi-adults
and dd born 11/21/10 - our T21 SuperBaby
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?
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).
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!
|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.|
mom to all boys B: 08/01, C: 07/05 , N: 03/09 , M: 01/12 and far too many lost ones
|18 members and 9,157 guests|
|Allen , customphotoprops , greenemami , Greg B , happy-mama , jamesmorrow , Kicoreann , lisak1234 , manyhatsmom , MarthaKw , mary32882 , Michele123 , omarinbox1888 , RollerCoasterMama , sciencemum , Springshowers , Zilver|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|