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

What do you think is the most effective way to turn this idea into real policy? Add your suggestions here for how you think we should run an advocacy campaign to advance the idea – including the overall strategy, messaging, targets, and tactics.

Approach this from the standpoint that people reading this forum already agree with you on the importance of the issue, and are asking "What can we do to help make this a reality?"

You can also comment on and rank the suggestions submitted by others.

This is such an idiotic piece of legislation. I kept thinking that there was no way they would let it go into effect...someone would stop it before they actually put it in place, yet here we are with no relief in sight.

Suggested by Jas N Smith on 01/28/2009 @ 02:11PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Comment on this Suggestion
When a person is arrested for drunk driving do the police arrest the entire town? Punish the guilty and leave the rest alone. I think the government needs to take a long look at what they're doing....
Perhaps the company importing the toys should be held responsible for making sure they comply to safety standards.
And, just a question from Jane Q. Public...am I not innocent until proven guilty??

Suggested by Rita Russell on 01/28/2009 @ 09:33AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Comment on this Suggestion
I feel that this law should only apply to those guilty of using toxins in children's toys in the first place: corporations that employ mass production factories overseas. Test all toys made outside the US or test all toys that are made of plastic. But don't hurt those who have been trusted to make children's toys since the beginning of time: the homemakers, crafters and other small businesses. In a down economy, shutting down small busineses is a HORRIBLE idea.

Suggested by clare marmalejo on 01/28/2009 @ 07:08AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Comment on this Suggestion
Have you sent your comments regarding component testing to the CPSC yet? The American Apparel and Footwear Association has made it easy for you to submit this important information with pre-written text that can be sent directly to the CPSC with the click of a button. You can of course edit the text if you have the time. Visit this page today, before it's too late. http://capwiz.com/americanapparel/issues/alert/?alertid=12525486 Your comments could make a huge difference, saving the livelihood of many thousands of Americans. Pass it on!

And also of note, today has been deemed CPSIA Blog-in Day by some ingenious Etsy sellers. Find out more here, and blog today about the CPSIA- http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=6013238

Cecilia Leibovitz

Suggested by Cecilia Leibovitz on 01/28/2009 @ 05:11AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Comment on this Suggestion
I believe that the CPSIA legislation by Rush and Waxman as it is written needs serious changes and/or amendments.

It is open for comment right now with a Feb 10, 2009 implementation date.

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 01/27/2009 @ 11:48AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Comment on this Suggestion
For most of us.....THIS law with TOTALLY change OUR LIVES!! I am a stay at home mom who works together with another SAHM and we have an online boutique! We have finally built a name for ourselves and now all that will be shattered!!

Not only is this OUR JOB and a BIG INCOME.....it is a BIG HOBBY and we LOVE designing things that mommies love to dress their children in!

This is sooo unfair and needs to be voted AGAINST!!

Suggested by Kristen Williams on 01/27/2009 @ 11:34AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Comment on this Suggestion
smart testing only. don't punish the ones that care the most. I do what I do because i care about my kids and other kids NOT playing with plastic (lead filled) toys. so i make 'em natural and unfinished, or polished with beeswax i cook at home. why should i give up my dream?? I am truing to do everything it takes to stay natural. if anyone say's to me that my toy is not safe, then THEY can go and test it, if they find lead THEY can sue me. thaats it. thats smart. CPSIA has gone too far. they will single handedly cripple America!!!!

Suggested by alex entelis on 01/27/2009 @ 07:24AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Comment on this Suggestion
I have yet to see a compelling reason to think that lead tainted toys have harmed American children. As a mom, having excessive lead in our toys sounds terrifying to me. However, after doing a bit of research, I have come to believe that the anti-lead crusade has been hyped up to the point of mass-hysteria. The CPSC's report on toy-related deaths is very interesting reading. Guess how many lead-tainted toy deaths were reported in 2005, 2006, and 2007? ZERO. The 2008 data has not been published on their website.
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/toymemo07.pdf

It's time for Congress to say enough is enough, and get to work on issues that are far more pressing. They are doing far more harm than good by supporting the CPSIA.

Suggested by JaneyJane J on 01/26/2009 @ 05:02PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Comment on this Suggestion
I've read a lot of comments that are similar to what I am about to write, but the more votes, the better... right?!?!

I agree with those posts that suggest getting certificates from the people/companies producing the items that go into the final product. Going along with the idea that fabric on a bolt has the same amount of lead (next to none or none) that cut fabric has as well as the same fabric sewn into a cute jumper.

Along with that, I would suggest random testing similar to what has been suggested. My example would be like when athletes are randomly drug tested... when their name comes up, they get tested (for a small clothing or toy maker it would be a finished product) and then when it comes back, you are in the clear. If not, then it goes farther.

I would be more than happy to get certification from who I purchase my supplies from, as well as throw one shirt or dress "to the wolves" now and again to save my small business. Hopefully rationale thinking and common sense will prevail!!!

Suggested by Liz Murphy on 01/26/2009 @ 04:07PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Comment on this Suggestion
I am an emlopyee of Roylco Inc. located in ANDERSON S.C. This company manufactures children's products. Recently our company president was on WYFFchannel 4 news reporting on the Consumer Products Safety Improvment Act (CPSIA) and how it will affect the company. This law which was supported by our state Senators and Congressman supported, requires VERY exspensive product testing. Our copmany is worried that the cost of this testing will FORCE the company to go out of business. We are hoping that our state reprasenatives will reconsider the CPSIA and what it will do to small businesses and their emlpoyees. I have e-mailed state reprasenitives and hope they will see what this law will do to the unemploment situation in this country.

Suggested by sally smith on 01/26/2009 @ 04:05PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- View 1 Comment