New law will close small businesses, fill dumps

I know about the lead in paints but not in clothings and books.
 
darkdog said:
Actually, that's not true. If it were true, we would never drive our kids anywhere because car accidents are the greatest risk of accidental death. Risk is impossible to totally eliminate. If I have a child and pay to have every single thing I own tested for every possible harmful chemical and have my place entirely childproofed, I won't have much money leftover for such things as food, rent, diapers, medicine, etc. And my place will still not be 100% safe for him or her. That's why we have to think in terms of trade-offs.
Who said risk is totally impossible to eliminate? We are talking about reduction and minimization, not elimination. And no one is asking a parent to pay for testing. They are demanding that the business owners not sell products containing unacceptable levels of lead and phalates. And you might want to keep i mind that these products have been outlawed for years. To sell them is in violation of the law.

That's assuming the products sold at consignment stores to the poor are riskier than new items sold at chain retail stores. I've seen no evidence of this. Actually, this legislation was a reaction to tainted merchandise sold by China to large companies like Mattel.
Those items have been recalled. This is an effort to insure that those articles, among others, are not continuing to be sold at second hand stores and consignment shops.

However, such companies won't be affected by this nearly as much as the small companies and consignment shops. When the cost to test their inventories is several multiples of what the inventory's worth, I don't see how they can possibly stay in business without going underground.

They don't have to test every single item on their shelves. The first step would be to check current recall lists and see if they have any of those products in their inventory. If so, get rid of them appropriately.


Believe me- I don't like it any more than you do, but we have to accept some risks. Refusing to accept risks is about as foolish as refusing to accept gravity. I would turn the question back on you- is it perfectly acceptable to destroy businesses, jobs, and wallets during already difficult times when such action is unlikely to curb a risk that's already low to begin with?
Click to expand...

We do not have to accept the risk of purchasing an item that has been recalled or banned for any number of years. You haven't shown that any business will be destroyed. However, lead poisoning and phalate exposure has already been shown to destroy lives without any doubt.
 
ugg

I used to be able to sell children's brand name and designer shoes on Ebay and did ok. If this passes it's going to be a nightmare. Wonder if it will also mean replacing eveything I have in my business (the preschool)
 
Angelus said:
I used to be able to sell children's brand name and designer shoes on Ebay and did ok. If this passes it's going to be a nightmare. Wonder if it will also mean replacing eveything I have in my business (the preschool)
Click to expand...

Not unless you are using items that have been recalled. And, since child care facilities are subject to inspections, I doubt seriously that you are.
 
Jiro said:
which is why I said in Post #11 - "Looks like we're having another unreasonable McCarthyism-like fear."
Click to expand...

Do you think so ? Well, I believe that they are doin' it for a purpose and intention for somethin' they want to cause. They are hunger for more power by controllin' people's lives. I don't like this picture if, not at all.
 
jillio said:
It is necessary to test for both because both have negative health effects. This doesn't have anything to do with the economy, but with product safety.
Click to expand...

Well, you know what, Jillio ? I don't believe anythin' they say they want us to hear ( read ). It's all about their controllin' and power. To me, they are wearin' " sheep " clothes but, they are wolves under it. They knew it will hurt people. IF, they knew it will hurt their businesses, then why would they do it ? It's all full of it. They should have done it a long time ago --- WHY NOW ? I mean, look at economy they put people through...........
 
jillio said:
So you would prefer that a child suffer mental retardation and liver failure as the result of playing with toys containing unacceptble levels of lead and phalates? Or that a child be born with severe birth defects because the mother was exposed to unacceptable levels during her pregnancy?
Click to expand...

I know about toys containin' lead and phalates... but, clothings ? Oh, come on you knew better than that. It's all ridiculous! It just can't be clothin' or other items like books, or dressers or such.

It's not only lead and phalates that could cause kids sick or what ever. Foods could cause them sick, too... and even vaccinate shots as well. You could think of other things that could cause kids suffer. Now, you mention about born with severe birth defects -- well, how about drugs that could cause it as well ? :hmm:

All I could think of that it is all lie and bullcrap. The government can not be trusted. They changed soooo much lately! And, it is waaaay tooo much.
 
Maria said:
Well, you know what, Jillio ? I don't believe anythin' they say they want us to hear ( read ). It's all about their controllin' and power. To me, they are wearin' " sheep " clothes but, they are wolves under it. They knew it will hurt people. IF, they knew it will hurt their businesses, then why would they do it ? It's all full of it. They should have done it a long time ago --- WHY NOW ? I mean, look at economy they put people through...........
Click to expand...

so you don't care if people do unsafe things just to survive in economy? the unsafe things that are harmful to people.
 
Jiro said:
so you don't care if people do unsafe things just to survive in economy? the unsafe things that are harmful to people.
Click to expand...

We ALL do unsafe things to survive in economy for a very long time. Not just recently. It began when the " debt " started before it became worse like today.
 
Hmmm. Lead-testing kits are a dime a dozen. Easily done. What is HARD, though, is knowing the truth about the actual amount of cooties children get from swallowing bugs. You know, the thing they do?
I know I do not trust products made in China, though.
 
jillio said:
Who said risk is totally impossible to eliminate? We are talking about reduction and minimization, not elimination. And no one is asking a parent to pay for testing. They are demanding that the business owners not sell products containing unacceptable levels of lead and phalates. And you might want to keep i mind that these products have been outlawed for years. To sell them is in violation of the law.
Click to expand...
That was an example to illustrate the craziness of a "no trade-off" attitude. Is it worth it for me to spend all my savings and go deep into debt because I felt there could be no trade-off with my child's safety? If doing so reduces the risk by 0.01%, is it worth it? Any sane person would say no, so why should such an attitude justify regulations that will destroy businesses and hurt many more?

jillio said:
They don't have to test every single item on their shelves. The first step would be to check current recall lists and see if they have any of those products in their inventory. If so, get rid of them appropriately.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the article? The controversy isn't about checking a banned/recalled item database. It's about testing the products and the huge expenses involved with that.

jillio said:
We do not have to accept the risk of purchasing an item that has been recalled or banned for any number of years. You haven't shown that any business will be destroyed. However, lead poisoning and phalate exposure has already been shown to destroy lives without any doubt.
Click to expand...
You're right that we can't know for sure the effect on businesses until the law is actually enacted, regardless of how logical the hypothesis may seem. However, it's a hypothesis I'd rather not test. I also haven't seen any indication that these measures will actually increase the safety of children's products, at least compared to more sane measures that could be adopted.
 
Maria said:
We ALL do unsafe things to survive in economy for a very long time. Not just recently. It began when the " debt " started before it became worse like today.
Click to expand...

so you condone it? funny... you don't condone abortion & death penalty.. but you condone people doing unsafe things in the name of economical survival even if it kills people?
 
Beowulf said:
Hmmm. Lead-testing kits are a dime a dozen. Easily done. What is HARD, though, is knowing the truth about the actual amount of cooties children get from swallowing bugs. You know, the thing they do?
I know I do not trust products made in China, though.
Click to expand...
According to the article, "testing for each of her clothing articles to run between $300 and $1,500."
 
Update:

Regulators rethink rules on testing children's clothing and toys for lead
The Consumer Product Safety Commission gives a preliminary OK to exempt some items from testing after complaints of hardship to thrift stores and sellers of handmade toys.
By Alana Semuels
January 7, 2009
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has given preliminary approval to changes in new lead-testing rules after complaints that the measures could have forced thrift stores and sellers of handmade toys to dispose of merchandise or even go out of business.

If formally adopted, the changes approved on a first vote Tuesday would grant exemptions to last year's Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which seeks to ensure that products for children do not contain dangerous amounts of lead.

As currently written, the act would require all products aimed at children 12 and under to be tested for lead and phthalates starting Feb. 10. Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable.

Large manufacturers and retailers say the cost of testing will not be a burden. But small businesses such as handmade-toy shops and thrift stores say the requirement would force them to spend tens of thousands of dollars to test products such as clothing, in which the threat of lead is almost nonexistent. Many thrift stores said they would be forced to stop selling children's clothing or close altogether.

The commission's two members (a third seat is vacant) voted tentatively to exempt:

* Items with lead parts that a child cannot access;

* Clothing, toys and other goods made of natural materials such as cotton and wood; and

* Electronics that are impossible to make without lead.

The commission also tentatively approved a rule that clarifies how it determines exclusions from the law.

The vote opens up a 30-day public comment period that will begin when notice of the rules are printed in the Federal Register. Interested parties can find out how to submit comments by signing up to receive e-mail from the CPSC at http://www.alldeaf.com/current-events/www.cpsc.gov .

No final rules will be approved until after Feb. 10, when the testing rules go into effect.

That means retailers and manufacturers who sell untested children's merchandise would technically be in violation of the new law starting Feb. 10. Whether federal regulators will enforce the rules -- which might entail inspections at thousands of secondhand stores and toy shops across the country -- is another question.

"The CPSC is an agency with limited resources and tremendous responsibility to protect the safety of families," said Scott Wolfson, a CPSC spokesman. "Our focus will be on those areas we can have the biggest impact and address the most dangerous products."
Click to expand...
Regulators rethink rules on testing children's clothing and toys for lead - Los Angeles Times
 
darkdog said:
That was an example to illustrate the craziness of a "no trade-off" attitude. Is it worth it for me to spend all my savings and go deep into debt because I felt there could be no trade-off with my child's safety? If doing so reduces the risk by 0.01%, is it worth it? Any sane person would say no, so why should such an attitude justify regulations that will destroy businesses and hurt many more?

Do you even have children? As far as I am concerned, when it comes to things like the effects of lead poisoning and phalate poisoning, there is no trade off when it comes to children. Do you even know the disastrous effects of lead poisoning?


Did you even read the article? The controversy isn't about checking a banned/recalled item database. It's about testing the products and the huge expenses involved with that.

Yes, dear, I read the article. And since both lead and phalates have been banned in children's products, that is exactly what it is about.
You're right that we can't know for sure the effect on businesses until the law is actually enacted, regardless of how logical the hypothesis may seem. However, it's a hypothesis I'd rather not test. I also haven't seen any indication that these measures will actually increase the safety of children's products, at least compared to more sane measures that could be adopted.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you put business before choldren's health and well being. My priorities are obviously different from yours. I prefer to put children's health concerns first.
 
Jiro said:
so you condone it? funny... you don't condone abortion & death penalty.. but you condone people doing unsafe things in the name of economical survival even if it kills people?
Click to expand...

There it is. The hypocracy.:roll:
 
If this law doesn't get changed, it will be disaster for mom-and-pop businesses, thrift stores that serve low-income families, and low-income families with children.

Big retailers can afford the testing, and upper-income families can afford new clothing.

Goodwill and other used clothing stores will quit selling children's clothing. Where will low-income families buy clothing for their children?

I'm not against testing for hazards. But I believe the testing should be done at the point of production, not at the retail level. The companies that produce the fabrics, yarns, buttons, threads, snaps, zippers, trims, etc., should be required to test their products. The materials that go into toys and children's furnishings should be tested at the point of manufacture of raw materials. The suppliers of inks, papers, and binding materials should be tested instead of testing individual books.

Since this is a federal mandate with no grandfathering-in period, there should at least be a tax break for those industries who have to buy the testing equipment and services.

If the government really has the safety of the consumer at heart, then it should make this process as easy and affordable as possible.
 
Reba said:
If this law doesn't get changed, it will be disaster for mom-and-pop businesses, thrift stores that serve low-income families, and low-income families with children.

Big retailers can afford the testing, and upper-income families can afford new clothing.

Goodwill and other used clothing stores will quit selling children's clothing. Where will low-income families buy clothing for their children?

I'm not against testing for hazards. But I believe the testing should be done at the point of production, not at the retail level. The companies that produce the fabrics, yarns, buttons, threads, snaps, zippers, trims, etc., should be required to test their products. The materials that go into toys and children's furnishings should be tested at the point of manufacture of raw materials. The suppliers of inks, papers, and binding materials should be tested instead of testing individual books.

I agree with you there.

Since this is a federal mandate with no grandfathering-in period, there should at least be a tax break for those industries who have to buy the testing equipment and services.

And that would help to solve the problem of expense.

If the government really has the safety of the consumer at heart, then it should make this process as easy and affordable as possible.
Click to expand...

And that, too. There needs to be a middle ground between no testing, and the business shouldering all the expense.
 
jillio said:
Do you even have children? As far as I am concerned, when it comes to things like the effects of lead poisoning and phalate poisoning, there is no trade off when it comes to children. Do you even know the disastrous effects of lead poisoning?
Click to expand...
So are you now saying that I should pay to have everything in my home tested regardless of the cost? Because just a minute ago, you said, "And no one is asking a parent to pay for testing." Did you go to such extremes for your child? Are you saying I should?

jillio said:
Yes, dear, I read the article. And since both lead and phalates have been banned in children's products, that is exactly what it is about.
Click to expand...
No, it's about unreasonable regulations that will hurt and even destroy businesses. I'm all for sane regulations. That's why I said, "I also haven't seen any indication that these measures will actually increase the safety of children's products, at least compared to more sane measures that could be adopted." The reason bad laws like this get passed by such a huge majority is because politicians want to avoid the shrill voices yelling "he doesn't care about the children!". At that point, all reason goes out the window.

jillio said:
Perhaps you put business before choldren's health and well being. My priorities are obviously different from yours. I prefer to put children's health concerns first.
Click to expand...
See? That's why I'm not a politician.

Oh, you know what other soulless despicable thing I plan to do with my kids in the name of convenience? I'm going to put them in a car and drive them places. :-o
 
Back
Top