Save Small Business from the CPSIA - Ideas for Change in America

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.

Thank you

Suggested by samiam iamsam on 02/04/2009 @ 05:24PM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
Comment on this Suggestion

And I'd also love to change the title of this Idea (again) to "Save US ALL from the CPSIA"
This issue is so much broader than small businesses. American families will all suffer if this law becomes enforced, regardless of any affiliations with small businesses.

Suggested by Christy Dryden on 02/04/2009 @ 08:18AM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
Comment on this Suggestion

#1 Component testing.
     Accept supplier test certificates for these components.
     Assume that products sold as food-grade are also lead/phthalate safe.

Even if the law isn't changed to require suppliers to test materials before selling them, the market is already driving them to because manufacturers need to know that their finished product will pass the test long before there is an actual product to have tested. Before they order their supplies, the need to know that they aren't going to cause any problems down the road.
And for the rare widget that is only available from one supplier who refuses to test, asking a small manufacturer to pay for ONE test on their shipment of those widgets (regardless of the number of end uses) is not an unreasonable burden.
Products sold for human consumption, such as food coloring, should also be presumed safe for toys and other children's products.

#2 Inexpensive screening to determine need for testing
I don't have the hard data on XRF testing precision, and don't know that it meets the laws wording of "equally precise" - but something doesn't need to be equally precise to be equally effective. A less precise technology can be made equally effective at capturing all cases of something by setting your tolerances to allow for more false positives and virtually no false negatives.
If XRF (or other inexpensive testing mechanism) is deemed less precise, how about using it as a screening tool? Even if acid tests are required for any material showing ANY lead detected in the screening, that should significantly reduce the financial burden.

#3 "Caution: not tested for lead or phthalates"
I see this as more potentially problematic than the other suggestions, but this would be a wonderful option for LOW-RISK products (ie non-painted, non-plastic).

#4 Require testing only for products with an established risk factor.
The current system of "test everything until we determine what doesn't need to be tested" is not only un-American, but impractical. This needs to be reversed to target high-risk categories of products now and adopt a plan to assess risk factors for everything else BEFORE requiring any testing.
This would IMMEDIATELY fix the most drastic issues that caused the recalls (jewelry, painted toys) while allowing testing facilities to grow gradually to meet the need instead of forcing exponential expansion of testing capacity then slashing their work as certain categories are deemed safe.
Look at the lead/phthalate recalls of the last 10 years and target similar products: painted toys, vinyl, jewelry, fabric with painted designs, fabric with metallic threads, painted zipper pulls, etc
THEN consider whether you need to implement a law to test socks. Or the entire sweatshirt that the painted zipper pull is attached to. Or the playsilks dyed with food coloring and vinegar.

Suggested by Christy Dryden on 02/04/2009 @ 08:12AM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
Comment on this Suggestion

Perhaps there could be a clause for small businesses that allows them to sell their products as long as there is a disclaimer noted on the tag. "This garment has not undergone testing..." We have a Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes after all.

Suggested by Stephanie Pearson on 02/03/2009 @ 07:16AM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
Comment on this Suggestion

CPSC Stay of Enforcement Offers Hope But No Solution to Small Manufacturers

"Action by Congress Still Urgently Needed. The unintended consequences of the CPSIA will continue to cause severe problems for many."

February 1, 2009 -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Dan Marshall, Peapods Natural Toys & Baby Care
The Handmade Toy Alliance
Tel. 651-695-5559
dan (AT) peapods.com
www.handmadetoyalliance.org

Stamford, CT February 2, 2009—On Friday, January 30, 2009, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in response to numerous requests by industry organizations including the Handmade Toy Alliance, issued a stay of enforcement of several provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), important provisions which were set to begin on February 10, 2009. This limited stay comes after numerous members of Congress urged the CPSC to quickly resolve unanswered issues and a coalition of 67 business associations, including the Handmade Toy Alliance, requested a delay.

Although the stay provides temporary relief for small businesses for some aspects of the new law, the unintended consequences of the CPSIA will continue to cause severe problems for many. Even with the stay, retailers and manufacturers will still face considerable challenges beginning on February 10, 2009.

“The stay sends a message to Congress that work is still needed on technical amendments to the CPSIA to fix the law,” noted Dan Marshall, founder of the HTA. “I think this is good news. Not because it solves our problems, but because it gives us some breathing room to get our problems solved. Our work is far from done.”

Specifically, Congress needs to take action this week to make the necessary statutory changes to halt the February 10 effective date to give the CPSC sufficient time to complete and issue comprehensive regulations on the many outstanding issues. More importantly, such a delay would give small businesses across the country the time to fully understand and comply with this complicated new product safety law.

"We share the goal of consumer advocates to make sure only safe childrens products are sold.” Cecilia Leibovitz of CraftsburyKids.com said. “Yet we also need clear and consistent rules in place so sellers and makers of children’s products can know how to comply with these important rules. So far, that hasn't happened."

The Handmade Toy Alliance is a grassroots alliance of 289 toy stores, toymakers and children's product manufacturers from across the country, who want to preserve consumer access to unique handmade toys, clothes and children's goods in the USA. Since November of 2008, they have been working to bring awareness to the impact and unintended consequences of the CPSIA on small businesses throughout the country.

“We recognize that the stay does not exempt us from the 600ppm lead limits within the CPSIA” Jill Chuckas, owner of CraftyBaby.com stated. “Nor do we want to be exempted. But it does recognize that all stakeholders need time to work together on common sense amendments and comprehensive guidance to allow our member businesses to keep doing what they love – creating beautiful, unique and safe hand crafted products for children.”

There is no reprieve, however, for small manufacturers who sell to larger retailers or catalogs, most of whom will continue to require full compliance with the CPSIA by February 10. The CPSC still has not clearly defined how manufacturers must comply with the law and many manufacturers are therefore finding it impossible to do so.

And, the stay leaves retailers in limbo. Although manufacturers will not need to prove compliance with 600ppm lead limits, retailers will still be held liable if their merchandise exceeds those limits. And, without testing, retailers will have no way to assure compliance. Also excluded from the stay is a new requirement for children's products to be tested by February 12 for small parts hazards, which will also carry significant compliance costs, especially for small manufacturers.

Members of the Handmade Toy Alliance will be attending the upcoming Toy Fair held at the Jacob Javits Center in New York City from February 15 – 18, 2009. Rob Wilson, owner of Challenge & Fun, has devoted a section of his booth (#1249) at the show for the HTA and a CPSIA discussion forum. Members of the HTA will be present to answer and discuss issues related to the CPSIA with industry colleagues and members of the press.

Jill Chuckas, Crafty Baby, Owner, Designer (Stamford, CT)
The Handmade Toy Alliance
Tel. 888-788-5168
jill (AT) craftybaby.com
www.handmadetoyalliance.org
Cecilia Leibovitz, President
Craftsbury Kids (Montpelier,VT)
The Handmade Toy Alliance
Tel. 802-223-7143
ceci (AT) craftsburykids.com
www.handmadetoyalliance.org
Rob Wilson, Vice President, Challenge & Fun
The Handmade Toy Alliance
Tel. 888-384-6200
hta (AT) challengeandfun.com
www.handmadetoyalliance.org

Suggested by Cecilia Leibovitz on 02/02/2009 @ 06:04AM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
Comment on this Suggestion

It should be brought to the attention to the CPSC, that a previous Commission ruled and use it as a precedent to exclude these items from the CPSIA, unless they are already excluded under 16 CFR Part 1303.2(b)(4) & Part 1303.3.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=16:2.0.1.2.46&idno=16#16: On February 13, 1995 , the Consumer Product Safety Commission made a ruling, part of which, is listed below the link to the specific page of the document to which I will refer.

http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/register/1995/1995_8192.pdf
16 CFR Part 1500 Statement of Policy or Interpretation; Enforcement Policy for Art Materials
E. Response to Comments
3. Actual Toxicity Hazards

One commenter argued that the proposed enforcement policy would allow products which present chronic toxicity hazards to consumers to evade the review required by LHAMA. The commenter stated that items "such as, pencils, paper, fabric, paint brushes and sand have all been found to present chronic toxicity hazards in the past..."
The Commission's scientific staff examined this comment, and does not agree. Neither the Commission nor the staff have concluded that any of the listed items typically present chronic toxicity hazards.The staff has in the past examinedsome uses of some of these materials outside the context of art materials.....Paper has been found to contain extremely small amounts of dioxin, but the amount is so small the risk is negligible. Through it's enforcement policy, the
Commission is attempting to focus enforcement efforts on items that may actually harm consumers. The Commission believes this policy furthers that goal. It is worth noting that in the unlikely event that any of these items were found to be dangerous, the labeling and banning provisions of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15U>S>C> 1261 (f), (p), and (q)(1), and 15 U.S.C. 1263) still apply."
This is from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, February 13. 1995
It is part of federal documents , accessible by the public.

Suggested by Kathy . on 01/30/2009 @ 08:43AM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
Comment on this Suggestion

After ten years of service I was "let go" by Delphi two years ago. The job market was horrible here in Ohio so I started my own business. I own www.crazybabyclothing.com. It is an online store selling screen printed onesies and cool baby gifts. Or, at least it was. I understand the importance of testing painted toy trains manufactured in foreign countries. This law misses the mark by a mile though. Why are american companies being punished? I suppose everyone will just have to shop at Walmart from here on out. I'll have to file bankruptcy. Thanks! Good looking out! Idiots.

Suggested by Jay Stueve on 01/30/2009 @ 07:22AM PT

Report close
You must be signed in to report content.
Comment on this Suggestion

Importers must monitor their supply chains.
As developing countries enter WTO, new workshops are used for lower prices and the importer owns the responsibility to monitor and scrutinize their supply chain. PBS program: Ilicit: The Dark Trade highlights how opaque supply chains came be. Will 3rd party services control workshops and their subcontractors?

Suggested by t . on 01/30/2009 @ 06:07AM PT