Craig24 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/2009.../901260356/1097 According to this article, congress has passed a new product safety law that may do great harm to many businesses. On Feb. 10, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act will take effect, imposing strict safety measures on products made for children and requiring that toys and all other products made for children under the age of 12 be tested for safety, specifically lead content, and labeled with their material contents. While it sounds good in theory, the legislation means ALL products. Under the new law, children's products with more than 600 ppm (parts per million) total lead cannot be sold in the United States on or after Feb. 10, even if they were manufactured before that date. This is on the heals of that new law requiring phone cameras to click. It just doesn't stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/2009.../901260356/1097 According to this article, congress has passed a new product safety law that may do great harm to many businesses. On Feb. 10, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act will take effect, imposing strict safety measures on products made for children and requiring that toys and all other products made for children under the age of 12 be tested for safety, specifically lead content, and labeled with their material contents. While it sounds good in theory, the legislation means ALL products. Under the new law, children's products with more than 600 ppm (parts per million) total lead cannot be sold in the United States on or after Feb. 10, even if they were manufactured before that date. This is on the heals of that new law requiring phone cameras to click. It just doesn't stop. My girlfriend was really upset about this earlier because it also applies to handmade toys produced by individuals in the US (among others). It is obviously impossible for someone who makes a series of 5 wooden toys to pay for all the required testing and still manage to sell it profitably to others.... It would basically destroy any small scale such operation, and it's a terrible shame and outrage. She said that the tests would amount to about 300-400 dollars per line of products, which wouldn't be prohibitively expensive for a huge company, but it certainly would kill any small-scale operation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 My girlfriend was really upset about this earlier because it also applies to handmade toys produced by individuals in the US (among others). It is obviously impossible for someone who makes a series of 5 wooden toys to pay for all the required testing and still manage to sell it profitably to others.... It would basically destroy any small scale such operation, and it's a terrible shame and outrage. She said that the tests would amount to about 300-400 dollars per line of products, which wouldn't be prohibitively expensive for a huge company, but it certainly would kill any small-scale operation. Don't worry, that's what black markets are for. I have this image of some shady guy on a street corner opening his trench coat and trying to sell me unregulated hand made toys for a marked up price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 All the good toys I had in the sixties were "dangerous," yet I'm still here. And my cell-phone camera already makes a fake camera noise when you take a picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Don't worry, that's what black markets are for. I have this image of some shady guy on a street corner opening his trench coat and trying to sell me unregulated hand made toys for a marked up price. Yeah, it'll still drastically reduce the availability of them, though, and likely make them less affordable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Yeah, it'll still drastically reduce the availability of them, though, and likely make them less affordable. You're not looking on the bright side. Think how much more exciting it will be to buy them from a hoodlum rather than walmart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 My girlfriend was really upset about this earlier because it also applies to handmade toys produced by individuals in the US (among others). It is obviously impossible for someone who makes a series of 5 wooden toys to pay for all the required testing and still manage to sell it profitably to others.... It would basically destroy any small scale such operation, and it's a terrible shame and outrage. She said that the tests would amount to about 300-400 dollars per line of products, which wouldn't be prohibitively expensive for a huge company, but it certainly would kill any small-scale operation. Oh, the test is actually about 300-4000 dollars to do. But yeah, it's ridiculously expensive compared to pretty much anything that is handmade. Besides, why the hell are we testing a wooden hedgehog (for example) for lead poisoning anyway. How does a huge amount of lead get in that product anyway? It's just dumb as hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwertz Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 For a sardonic chuckle, check out Notice of Proposed Procedures and Requirements for a Commission Determination or Exclusion, 74 Fed. Reg. 2428-01 (Jan. 15, 2009) (proposing changes to, inter alia, 16 C.F.R. § 1500.90) to see the Consumer Product Safety Commission's proposed rules change for the procedures for obtaining an exemption from testing requirements: (c) To request an exclusion from the lead limits as provided under paragraph (a) of this section, the request must: (1) Be e-mailed to [email protected]. and titled "Section 101 Request for Exclusion of a Material or Product." Requests may also be mailed, preferably in five copies, to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, or delivered to the same address. (2) Be written in the English language. (3) Contain the name and address, and e-mail address or telephone number, of the requester. (4) Provide Documentation including: (i) A detailed description of the product or material; (ii) Data on the lead content of parts of the product or materials used in the production of a product; (iii) Data or information on manufacturing processes through which lead may be introduced into the product or material; (iv) Any other information relevant to the potential for lead content of the product or material to exceed the CPSIA lead limits that is reasonably available to the requestor; (v) Detailed information on the relied upon test methods for measuring lead content of products or materials including the type of equipment used or any other techniques employed and a statement as to why the data is representative of the lead content of such products or materials generally; and (vi) An assessment of the manufacturing processes which strongly supports a conclusion that they would not be a source of lead contamination of the product or material, if relevant. (5) Provide best-available, objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence to support a request for an exclusion that addresses how much lead is present in the product, how much lead comes out of the product, and the conditions under which that may happen, and information relating to a child's interaction, if any, with the product. (6) Provide best-available, objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that is unfavorable to the request that is reasonably available to the requestor. Still, preparing and filing such a request will probably end up being less expensive than testing and certification. Just better hope the people on the Commission aren't in a bad mood when they get your request. ~Q Fun Factoid: Administrative agencies of dubious constitutionality, such as the CPSC, through their delegated rulemaking authority, churn out more printed pages of binding federal law every week than Congress does in a whole year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Wouldn't it be cheaper to pass a law that kept parents from producing unsafe children? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 But it's for the children! We have to protect our children! It takes a village, remember? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 And it looks like this will affect the recreational market too...not things kids wear, but what lifestyle choices families might make... http://www.cyclenews.com/ShowStory.asp?HeadlineID=13413 I haven't seen any accounting that ever showed that removing led from fuels and paints ever did anything in the prior thirty years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.