Update 3: More clarifications/exemptions. This one looks promising for the cottage industry, at least. The entire pdf is available here, and they are asking for input for classes of materials to include in exemptions so that if you make products from these materials, you will not need any sort of certification.
There may be certain products or materials that inherently do not contain lead or contain lead at levels that do not exceed the lead content limits under section 101(a) of the CPSIA. To the extent that such materials or products exist, the Commission, of its own initiative, is proposing to exercise its section 3 authority to make preliminary determinations that certain commodities or classes of materials or products do not exceed the lead limits prescribed in section 10l(a)of the CPSIA. The effect of such a Commission finding would be to relieve the material or product from the testing requirement of section 102 of the CPSIA for purposes of supporting the required certification.
Update 2: A seller on Etsy had a very nice meeting with her Constituent Representative.
Update: A clarification to the law exempting resellers from testing products already in their inventory. (Thanks Penny Raine!) I’m still wondering about small businesses whose products are very unlikely to contain any lead, but for whom the certification process is a rather large barrier.
. . . . . .
I’ve been trying to catch up a bit on the Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008 sincce it seems that it may have severe consequences for microbusinesses which sell anything intended for children, including over E-Bay, Etsy, craft shows and bookstores, as well as those distributing used books. As with most things, it starts with a real problem which needs addressed in some way: the number of Chinese products recently found to contain lead. Most major US manufacturers were pretty swift in recalling products, but I’m sure we still have thousands if not millions of products for sale at dollar stores and other outlets across the US who deal largely with Chinese goods that are not being contracted by large toy companies who are concerned about public perceptions regarding the quality and safety of their toys.
But did they act too swiftly? I have no problems limiting lead in children’s toys, and this law seems to pretty clearly be directed at Chinese products in particular. I think laws governing US manufacturers (not to mention general public opinion) have kept American-made products pretty safe. But now every product to be accessible to children must be tested by a third party source, not just imports (section 102). And apparently this testing and the required certificate comes at a cost of $500 to $4000, well out of reach for most people I know making a little extra money on Etsy.
The LA Times reports on changes to the law made in response to these concerns.
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 www.cpsc.gov . LA Times
Karen, from Simply Amusing Blog, shares a little more about what she has learned researching an email from a homeschool list about how this may affect book distributors, including homeschoolers merely giving away resources. But even this new provision in the law does not seem to protect booksellers and other small companies whose products contain paints and dyes which are not necessarily made of natural materials. Or even products made from normal household materials if they are then put together and marketed for children.
We are in the thirty day public comment period so if you have concerns, it is best to voice them now before the law takes effect. Hopefully, the number of small businesses this certificate will affect even though they are unlikely to be selling products with any lead content whatsoever is merely an oversight that can be adjusted for in the final language of the law.
Hat Tip: All American Blogger
Thanks for posting on this issue. I’ve been sending letters to my elected officials, the CPSC, local newspapers and TV stations. This whole thing is ridiculous.
Anyway, regarding the resellers, this phrase from the clarification just released is problematic:
“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.”
Resellers aren’t required to test, but they are supposed to avoid selling anything “unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit.” So they’re not required to test, but they can’t sell stuff unless they do test. That’s about as clear as mud.
Yeah, I thought it was about as clear as mud, too. I think we all agree that we don’t want a bunch of lead based toys on the market, and I really don’t mind something being put on imports. But have we found such a large problem with domestically produced items, or items produced in other nations with standards (such as Europe and Canada) that this is necessary?
Even the exemptions for natural products will still affect a lot of microbusinesses – how many children’s clothing makers do you know will want to use UNTREATED materials? As the exemption stands now, you can only used natural fibers if they haven’t been treated with dyes and other products. So all that leaves is white and a few variations of white. That’s no help!
Right now, they are looking at exempting classes of materials so those this affects are putting together lists of what they use to try to get all of it exempted. Seems like a laborious way to go about it, but I’d certainly send them lists of everything you might ever use. They seemed surprised that cottage industries thought they’d be affected, so hopefully this means that they will be accommodating.
Dana,
Thanks for getting the word out. I urge people to contact their representatives and speak up!
~Karen
Dana, I am surprised at the lack of attention this has gotten! News reports are slim and those that do report leave off the idea that ALL products intended for children are included, ie books. The way the law is written requires that the seller be responsible (ultimately) and not the manufacturer. It seems the intent has less to do with getting lead and phthalates out of children’s reaches and more to deaden our economy. If the problem is with the imports from China, why do we burden the small business owner of America?
I have calls out to a few different numbers regarding this law to clarify – does this include books and school-related materials; how about selling my used products at book fairs; what about items children play with that aren’t “products intended for children 12 and under” like dishes and tools and vacuums. No one has gotten back to me.
My fear is that this law is an entry into stricter regulation until the only toy, book, or any item allowed in the home or school or library must have some permanently tattooed seal of approval from the government. For the sake of the children, we must regulate every aspect of the citizen’s life.
In doing research as to why this silly law came about, I found a couple of groups that supported it. Ralph Nader co-founded a group called “Public Citizen.” This is one group that thinks it doesn’t go far enough in its reach. Here is their Dec. 4 press release: http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2779
Though there may be some good news, this law is not about protecting the business community. The idea is good – banning these nasty substances from children’s products. The implementation is wrong. The manufacturing level should be targeted as well as those imports that have proven to be tainted (China, for example, should be held highly accountable for their stunts in 2007). Again not the homemaker supplementing her income!
I only heard about this new law last week when it was briefly mentioned on a local news network. I felt not enough media attention was directed to the individuals and businesses that this would affect and where they could get all their questions answered. My concern is that a lot of fabrics I use for sewing my children’s wear are made from places like China, India, Japan and can be purchased from places like JoAnn’s, WalMart, and other US stores that sell fabrics. What does this mean as far as my being able to continue to use them. I am a home crafter that makes these items to sell at craft shows and fairs and although a “microbusiness,” this is after all my livelihood. How can I possibly comply with this law regarding testing if I cannot afford to do so. If I can purchase these products from supply retailers within the US, I always assumed they were safe to use. What does this mean for me?
I wish I knew, but I’m hoping the revisions will fall on manufacturers, not distributors and “assemblers.” I’ll keep updating as I get new information, but I think right now we are mostly waiting to see what happens with the negotiations going on at the moment.
I make childrens clothes i buy my fabric at local stores are these fabrics safe or not. I need to know if this is going to put me out of business before i get a lot of time invested in my product
basic items are cordory jumpers
primery colors.