Change.org

 

Ideas Home
»
Save Small Business from the CPSIA
»
Suggestions

Suggestions for Action

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.

  1. Rainweaver Hastings

    I think there ought to be a government run inspection for small scale toy production comparable to the food service inspection.  Toy makers and others affected by this decision could receive random inspections the way restaurants do to test the paints, sealants and other materials they are using.  european based and other foreign companies that wish to sell to the U.S. market would have to submit to this random inspection also, and we would just have to pay the slight tax cost of sending this inspector around.  Anyone manufacturing more than a certain amount, selling more than a specified amount, or owned by a major corporation in which the maker is not the primary distributor, would still need to go through the already laid plans for major corporations and comply with the  private third party testing.

    Suggested by Rainweaver Hastings on 01/26/2009 @ 09:34AM PT

  2. Susan Samuels

    I have to agree with Kathie.  As it stands now this law is too broad. Here's my suggestion.  Since we all agree that any testing should start with the manufacturers and suppliers--fabric, yarn, wood, thread, beads, etc. If a component has  already been tested have the manufacturers state  that on their labels.  The artisan or  crafter could then keep this information on file as proof that the components in their items are free of lead or other containments and list the  materials used on their item label.

    Suggested by Susan Samuels on 01/26/2009 @ 06:04AM PT

  3. Kathie Robert

    What makes the most sense to me, would be to repeal the CPSIA and start over. 
    It would take too long to ammend it.

    Suggested by Kathie Robert on 01/25/2009 @ 07:02PM PT

  4. Kelly Clifton

    Is this an example of "mass hysteria" writing laws?  Is this really happening in The United States of America?  Yes, certainly get lead out of children's products but don't execute it like a knee-jerk reation. 

    Applying rational thought, creating industry focus groups to measure the impact on all businesses (particularily medium, small and home based), determine which products actually do pose a threat, making reasonable regulations for products produced AFTER a certain date, exploring the environmental impact of millions of tons of product being dumped into our landfills, exploring the impact of potentially thousands of businesses closing creating further drain on unemployment funds, thousands more without health insurance, shuttered buildings on Main Street.  The list could go on and on.  The potential ramifications of this legislation are monsterous and immeasurable.

    Someone stop the insanity!  My situation is like thousands of others.  Many like me have put tons of time, energy, our own savings/retirement money into our businesses. To have it all taken away by hysteria and legislation run amuck is a slap in the face.  Frankly it feels un-American.

    Please contact your representatives.

    Suggested by Kelly Clifton on 01/25/2009 @ 02:09PM PT

  5. Bruce Scheck

    My company serves over 150 companies representing over 500 brands of childrens products. Mostly in the apparel and shoe sectors of children's products. Many of them teetering on closing due to the economy and other factors.  This will push many of them out of business therbye causing 100's or even 1000's of job losses.

    Certainly there is nothing more important than protecting children.  This is however is NOT the way to do it.  I have never heard of any child that has ever gotten sick from ingesting a piece of clothing due to lead content.  

    You can't legislate against everything and anything that causes harm to children.  If you did, you would have to outlaw food that kids choke on, automobiles that cause the death of many more kids every year than any article of clothing or footwear, playground equipment and anything else that kids come in contact with. 

    This legislation is absurd and will cause huge job losses and won't save one child's life.  

    Bruce J. Scheck
    President 
    Children's Credit Co-op, Inc.www.childrenscreditco-op.com
     

    Suggested by Bruce Scheck on 01/25/2009 @ 08:15AM PT

  6. Wendy Fox

    I can understand wanting to protect children because I am a Mom but when will the people who write this stuff up begin to think ahead to the long term ramifications? I know, I shouldn't even ask that but I am. Many families stay afloat on income generated by handmade projects. If they don't have this income, how many more will be applying for government aid? I am a full time professional in the I.T. industry but I am impacted by the effects of the downturn in the economy just as everyone else is.  I am also an artist and can sew so I am putting that to work as my second income. Unfortunately, if this law doesn't change, I will not be able to include childrens items in my online store, only adults taking away half of my extra income.

    I don't have health insurance because I am a contractor and can't afford the premiums on what I make. I had hoped this second income would have covered that. 

    I will be contacting my representatives also on this matter.

    Suggested by Wendy Fox on 01/25/2009 @ 06:38AM PT

  7. Craig Swanson

    The following good suggestions about how to limit the costs of testing while ensuring there are still some safety limits are excerpted from a CPSIA editorial at http://angiemedia.com/?p=880 :
    The problem is that the legal requirement to test finished products from every production lot down to the level of detail of testing every component in the finished product is outrageously expensive. For example, this means that small businesses that sell hand-made products are likely to be wiped out. Their “production runs” may be only dozens of items at a time. They cannot afford to test every spool of thread of each and every color, every delivery of buttons and snaps, and every can of paint they buy. The testing could far exceed the cost of manufacturing. And some of those things, such as the paint, haven’t legally had lead content in them for decades.
    CPSIA should have been designed to drive the testing requirements towards the start of the manufacturing process, not at its conclusion. The reason is simple economics. The original manufacturers of materials and components could test small quantities of their large production runs and provide certificates of conformity and test results to their buyers. These could be filed and tracked by electronic means, with abbreviated testing conformity stamps, stickers, or papers supplied with each order of materials shipped. The testing conformity indicators could be used by the buyers to look up the test results and verify that the materials and components they received were in fact tested according to their original manufacturers. While this still adds some cost, it is nowhere near having to test samples of every component from every finished production run of a product.To add an additional measure of safety without undo costs on small businesses, the government could use some of the $600+ million in CPSC funding authorized by CPSIA to randomly test materials and components for violations. Some of the costs could be recouped by random testing fees on businesses based upon the number of employees and by fines when violations are found. For instance, charge $100 for a random spot test for a manufacturer with 10 employees on up to $10,000 for more thorough testing for a manufacturer with 10,000 employees or more.To cover concerns regarding production line contamination apart from source materials and components, manufacturers could be given an option to either do the finished product testing as currently specified or to test environmental samples obtained from their operating production lines or manufacturing facilities to show that they have levels of lead and phthalates that are consistent with safe limits in finished products.The number of tests required could be based upon the number of sites and the production volume or number of employees. Small manufacturers building 100 toy rocking horses per year in a garage-based “plant” with one owner-employee might be subject to one test per year. Big manufacturers building 10,000,000 toy dolls in 6 factories employing 1000 workers would require more tests, perhaps monthly tests at each plant for a total of 72 per year. Assuming these tests cost about $300 each, they would add $3 to the cost of those toy rocking horses and perhaps less than a penny per doll. This may still not be ideal for small volume children’s product manufacturers, but it at least gives them a shot of staying in business while still taking some precautions to ensure that mass sales of unsafe products do not occur.

    Suggested by Craig Swanson on 01/25/2009 @ 02:14AM PT

  8. Shirley Vermillion

    I think the proposal is just so sadly typical of the nasty trend I see in American Government policies currently...all driven by the huge corporations that are the source of the problem in the first place- by having their crappy products produced in China & such countries!!!  I will say that I am outraged that all of my favorite artisans & unique toy & craft makers will be out of business if this ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS bill passes! What's to keep the giant companies from ignoring this law like the one that's already in place???? Just do something to enforce the current law- don't interfere with the little income & creativity of the little companies! I CANNOT IMAGINE needing to purchase a gift of any sort if this law would pass-all of our unique little boutiques will have to close- Hope the people in charge of all of this will think what life in our towns/ cities will look/be like if we're  left only with Walmarts!!!  FOR AMERICA's sake please WAKE UP & LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE HERE- these wonderful artisans/ crafters lighten up our lives with their incredible talents & crafts- LET them continue doing what they do best trying to carry on their creativity, suppliment their families' income a little (in an economy that more than ever really makes supplimental income a necessity) ... & brighten their customers lives!!! GOVERNMENT -BUTT OUT ON THIS LUDICROUS LAW! Who is behind this effort anyway- Walmart & it's favorite suppliers?????? I HAVE A FRIEND who grew up in Russia- & warns me that America is becoming closer & closer to Communism -stuff like this makes me believe it!!! We LOVE to support local artistic,& eclectic talent by supporting small businesses that this proposal seems to be specifically targeting-don't TAKE AWAY OUR PRIVILEGE OF THIS!!!  Shirley Vermillion  - eclectic, local art fan- & organizer of Art Bazzars

    Suggested by Shirley Vermillion on 01/24/2009 @ 07:48PM PT

  9. Sue Hill

    I agree Lead should not be in children's products nor should in be in any product. Perhaps the raw materials , material, yarn , thread etc. are the things that should be tested so that everyone is working with a safe product.  Whatever the solution more time is needed to explore the ramifications of this law. Small or micro businesses are the back bone of this country and it is foolish to close them down because of unregulated capitalism in China.

    Suggested by Sue Hill on 01/24/2009 @ 06:11PM PT

  10. sally smith

    i'm glad that i found this website. on monday morning when i go to work, i want other fellow emlpoyees to know about thie website.i have already stated my opinion at this site and i hope that it will have a positive affect.

    Suggested by sally smith on 01/24/2009 @ 04:34PM PT

Write a Suggestion

If you would like to leave a suggestion please sign in, or create an account

Endorsements for this Idea

Nonprofits and bloggers can formally endorse an idea they support. 482 current endorsements:


Endorse this Idea!

Nonprofits and bloggers can formally endorse an idea they support by completing the form below. If you represent a nonprofit, using an official organizational email address (e.g. "john@greenpeace.org" for Greenpeace) will expedite the process of confirming your organization's endorsement.

Nonprofit or Blogger?     
 
Name of Nonprofit / Blog
 
URL
 
Your First Name
 
Your Last Name
 
Your Email
 
close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.