All second hand children's clothes shops ordered to close

[minorwork]

As if things weren't hard enough, our esteemed, but with no foresight, Congressmen will put into effect on February 10, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. http://www.cpsc.gov/cpsia.pdf

The bugaboo is what it will do for Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, Goodwill, and thousands of small consignment shops in the country selling second hand clothes. The Simple Dollar » Hand-Me-Down Clothes in the Post Hand-Me-Down Era: Consumer Protectionism Gone Too Far? Testing for lead and pthalates is required on products sold for children 12 and younger and can be sold if carrying a tag confirming it has been tested. The clothes not carrying the tags are considered toxic and to be disposed of.

Do you suppose Congress intended to cause these shops to close? Or is our government populated by short sighted morons? I'll thank my rep, John Shimkus, for his affirmative vote and failure to spot the hardship this bill will cause.

Sure this is a good thing for product manufacturers, but for second hand shops?

[Diogenes]

Just another example of big brother getting too involved.

[Dan_77]

I don't see it in there.

It simply does not do what you say it will do, unless I'm missing something.

I see that manufacturers of all children's products will have to test for lead, etc.

I see that, in regards to phthalates, it will be illegal to sell child toys or child care products that contain them, and clothes are neither a toy nor a child care product as they are defined in the statute.

But perhaps I'm missing something... do you have a specific section of the statute?

[Diogenes]

Is this a backlash from the recent problems with Chinese products containing lead-based paint?

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Diogenes Is this a backlash from the recent problems with Chinese products containing lead-based paint?

It appears to be, yes.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I don't see it in there. It simply does not do what you say it will do, unless I'm missing something. I see that manufacturers of all children's products will have to test for lead, etc. I see that, in regards to phthalates, it will be illegal to sell child toys or child care products that contain them, and clothes are neither a toy nor a child care product as they are defined in the statute. But perhaps I'm missing something... do you have a specific section of the statute?

I would like to see that as well before sharing my opinion.

[minorwork]

I'd just heard on the 6 o'clock news of the regulations. I've just found this and haven't read much of it yet. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with enforcement. http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/advisory/322.pdf

[Jack]

Home crafts people are protesting this, too.

Due to under staffing at the CPSC and the flurry of toy recalls that have occurred, the agency passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in August, 2008. At first glance, this seems like good legislation, as it bans lead and phthalates in toys, mandates third-party testing and certification for all toys and requires toy makers to permanently label each toy with a date and batch number. Such requirements will be easy to fund for large toy companies; however, small independent natural toy companies will not be able survive these extra requirements.

Alert! New Consumer Product Safety Rules Will Make Handmade, Natural Toys Illegal : Eco Child’s Play

[minorwork]

The underlined section --warehousing or distributed in commerce--seems to be the phrase that allows the commision to come down on the shops and charities. From HR 4040:



SEC. 102. MANDATORY THIRD PARTY TESTING FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS.[/CENTER]

(a) Mandatory and Third Party Testing-

(1) GENERAL CONFORMITY CERTIFICATION-

(A) AMENDMENT- Paragraph (1) of section 14(a) ([COLOR=#0000ff]15 U.S.C. 2063(a)[/COLOR]) is amended to read as follows:



‘(1) GENERAL CONFORMITY CERTIFICATION- Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), every manufacturer of a product which is subject to a consumer product safety rule under this Act or similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other Act enforced by the Commission and which is imported for consumption or warehousing or distributed in commerce (and the private labeler of such product if such product bears a private label) shall issue a certificate which--

‘(A) shall certify, based on a test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program, that such product complies with all rules, bans, standards, or regulations applicable to the product under this Act or any other Act enforced by the Commission; and


‘(B) shall specify each such rule, ban, standard, or regulation applicable to the product.’.


(B) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by subparagraph (A) shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: minorwork The underlined section --warehousing or distributed in commerce--seems to be the phrase that allows the commision to come down on the shops and charities. From HR 4040: SEC. 102. MANDATORY THIRD PARTY TESTING FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS.[/CENTER] (a) Mandatory and Third Party Testing- (1) GENERAL CONFORMITY CERTIFICATION- (A) AMENDMENT- Paragraph (1) of section 14(a) ([COLOR=#0000ff]15 U.S.C. 2063(a)[/COLOR]) is amended to read as follows: ‘(1) GENERAL CONFORMITY CERTIFICATION- Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), every manufacturer of a product which is subject to a consumer product safety rule under this Act or similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other Act enforced by the Commission and which is imported for consumption or warehousing or distributed in commerce (and the private labeler of such product if such product bears a private label) shall issue a certificate which-- ‘(A) shall certify, based on a test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program, that such product complies with all rules, bans, standards, or regulations applicable to the product under this Act or any other Act enforced by the Commission; and ‘(B) shall specify each such rule, ban, standard, or regulation applicable to the product.’. (B) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by subparagraph (A) shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

No, that underlined part describes the type of product, not the part of the supply chain that has to do the testing and whatnot.

All I see is that the manufacturers would have to do all this, not end retailers and certainly not second handers.

[minorwork]

Quote by: tivodan1116 No, that underlined part describes the type of product, not the part of the supply chain that has to do the testing and whatnot. All I see is that the manufacturers would have to do all this, not end retailers and certainly not second handers.

We're not the bureaucrats at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. I don't see how it works either. But this sucker is sure making some buzz on the local news today.

Could be that the lobbyists are pushing this or somebody wanting a payoff. But then I'm generally pessimistic when a bureaucrat says, " Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

I don't know the clients of Brown and Gidding, P.C. in Washington D.C. but Wal Mart pops into my head for some reason. Who knows?

[ironeagle]

Quote by: Diogenes Is this a backlash from the recent problems with Chinese products containing lead-based paint?

You nailed it because too many of our products are made in china and thye fail to produce safe objects we have to now make more laws to prevent the poisoning of our children.

[Rortykiller]

lol, Tiv and Shaw in the same thread I'm excited!

In the act under section 20 it limits the amount of money someone can claim in a class action lawsuit against a company. So, this is legislation isn't about consumer rights but corporate protection.
In addition the legislation requires that stores pay $4,000 dollars per toys for testing. This could be applied to anyone with any material toys, including wooden toys.
In addition, the legislation does nothing to secure toy quality from China.

Bad legislation... as usual.

Quote by: ironeagle You nailed it because too many of our products are made in china and thye fail to produce safe objects we have to now make more laws to prevent the poisoning of our children.

More like they used it as an excuse, since the legislation has no effect on Chinese toys.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Rortykiller In addition the legislation requires that stores pay $4,000 dollars per toys for testing.

I don't understand why the stores have to pay for the testing. It's gov't policy that got the toy to the shelf, why does the retailer have to foot the bill?

[Rortykiller]

Quote by: Compugasm I don't understand why the stores have to pay for the testing. It's gov't policy that got the toy to the shelf, why does the retailer have to foot the bill?

rather, it is the small manufacturer who makes toys for his/her online business or single store front

[minorwork]

You gotta' love bureaucrats.

There has been movement by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I guess all the letters and email we've sent to the congressmen have hit home. CPSC Clarifies Requirements of New Children’s Product Safety Laws Taking Effect in February I've underlined the pertinent paragraph.

A happy ending, eh?

Quote by: CPSC link CPSC Clarifies Requirements of New Children’s Product Safety Laws Taking Effect in February Guidance Intended for Resellers of Children’s Products, Thrift and Consignment Stores WASHINGTON, D.C. - In February 2009, new requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) take effect. Manufacturers, importers and retailers are expected to comply with the new Congressionally-mandated laws. Beginning February 10, 2009, children’s products cannot be sold if they contain more than 600 parts per million (ppm) total lead. Certain children’s products manufactured on or after February 10, 2009 cannot be sold if they contain more than 0.1% of certain specific phthalates or if they fail to meet new mandatory standards for toys. Under the new law, children’s products with more than 600 ppm total lead cannot lawfully be sold in the United States on or after February 10, 2009, even if they were manufactured before that date. The total lead limit drops to 300 ppm on August 14, 2009. The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children’s products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards. The new safety law does not require resellers to test children’s products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. However, resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties. When the CPSIA was signed into law on August 14, 2008, it became unlawful to sell recalled products. All resellers should check the CPSC Web site (www.cpsc.gov) for information on recalled products before taking into inventory or selling a product. The selling of recalled products also could carry civil and/or criminal penalties. While CPSC expects every company to comply fully with the new laws resellers should pay special attention to certain product categories. Among these are recalled children’s products, particularly cribs and play yards; children’s products that may contain lead, such as children’s jewelry and painted wooden or metal toys; flimsily made toys that are easily breakable into small parts; toys that lack the required age warnings; and dolls and stuffed toys that have buttons, eyes, noses or other small parts that are not securely fastened and could present a choking hazard for young children. The agency has underway a number of rulemaking proposals intended to provide guidance on the new lead limit requirements. Please visit the CPSC website at www.cpsc.gov for more information.

[ironeagle]

Quote by: Rortykiller lol, Tiv and Shaw in the same thread I'm excited! In the act under section 20 it limits the amount of money someone can claim in a class action lawsuit against a company. So, this is legislation isn't about consumer rights but corporate protection. In addition the legislation requires that stores pay $4,000 dollars per toys for testing. This could be applied to anyone with any material toys, including wooden toys. In addition, the legislation does nothing to secure toy quality from China. Bad legislation... as usual. More like they used it as an excuse, since the legislation has no effect on Chinese toys.

I see well then I suppose you are right then probably another useless law, like usual. I threw away a bunch of my kid's toys after the recalls from china, they ought to be ashamed.

[Compugasm]

Damn, I invested all my money into lead baby teethers.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Rortykiller In addition the legislation requires that stores pay $4,000 dollars per toys for testing. This could be applied to anyone with any material toys, including wooden toys.

It doesn't require stores to pay anything. It requires manufacturers (domestically) or importers to pay for testing.

More like they used it as an excuse, since the legislation has no effect on Chinese toys.

Of course it does. It requires the importers of products from China (and anywhere else) - which will be companies based in the U.S. - to provide proof of the lead/phthalete compliance.

[ironeagle]

I suppose people will cause a ruckess about this since it will cost manufacturers money and then maybe it won't be cheaper to buy from China anymore, istead of America oh well, I'm starting to like the law myself as I read more.