A Bit Relieved...

I haven't had time today to do much research on CPSIA.  My Mom and I were at the hospital early this morning for her first cataract surgery.  Things went well and she is home and under "supervision" until we see the Dr. again in the morning.  I liked this Dr....very friendly, southern gentleman with an excellent reputation.  The procedure went so well and was so "easy" that she was talking about having the other eye done before we left the recovery room!

Thankfully, I have great blog readers who did more research.  Here are some comments left...I am posting them because not everyone reads the comments:

From blueberryraindrop:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-thrift9-2009jan09,0,7588285.story

thrift stores exempted now too... and sounds like any used product sales, so probably garage sales too
"On Thursday the agency backed away even more, issuing a statement saying that "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 . . . or new toy standards."

From Kerry:

Thanks for all of the good information.  I checked out some of the websites listed in your blog and found this on the CPSC.gov site.
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html
"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."  I know that doesn't help small, homebased manufacturers like Rob, but for those of us who buy used clothes and stuff...will the new law be less of a problem?

From Brandy:

I'm pretty upset about this too ... we're trying to buy LESS crap from the stores and more homemade stuff (until I'm able to make it myself) ... 90% of the books we buy are bought used ... about 80% of the clothing we buy is bought used.
I found out this morning that they clarified a bit:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html

From Tricia:

Check out the link below. It clarifies the new law making it ok to resell childrens toys without checking for lead.
www.cpsc.gov  (In the red box)
Hope this helps!

From Cheryl:

Check this out...I believe this situation may have been handled.
http://familyclassroom.net/BookBan0210.html

From Christy:

in reading the article online that spurred your comment (and those from Heather) I think ban and felony are harsh words that I didn't see.  although, i tend to agree with you about the size and "size" of our government's britches, i think this new legislation is intended to regulate all of the recalls that seemed to come from china (and other countries we import goods from). i'm a big supporter of resale stores and consignment sales and most of my kids' toys & clothes are used and come from these places.  i feel it's my responsibility to make sure their toys are safe (and lead "free"), even new ones...seeing how a LOT of toys were recalled in the past 2 years.

believe me, i'm NOT a government fan at all, but don't agree with the wording of your post title, based on the information Heather provided in the links.  thanks for posting about this at all though...i hadn't heard anything about it.

I have taken a few moments to read through more of the CPSIA website ...I was searching specifically for the original intention of this law. It appears that the desire was to limit lead content...not a bad thing.  But, as often happens with Big Government, they get carried away and become down right foolish.

They also exempted what they called "natural substances".  "Precious gemstones of diamond, ruby, sapphire and emerald. Certain semiprecious stones, natural or cultured pearls, wood, natural fibers and other materials including coral, amber, feathers, fur, and untreated leather." And, "surgical steel, precious metals: gold, sterling silver, platinum, palladium, rhodium, osmium, iridium, ruthenium".  However, this exemption applied only to "material that is untreated and unadulterated by the addition of materials or chemicals including pigments dyes, coatings, finishes or any other substances, and has not undergone any processing that could result in lead content that exceeds the CPSIA lead limits."

It also appears that initially, this law was retroactive to all consumer goods still on the shelf when this law came into effect in February (emphasis mine):

"First, with respect to lead, the Commission is aware of the potentially significant economic impact that the new Act would have on any remaining inventory next February.  However, Congress stated that children's products that did not meet the new lead limits would be treated as a "banned hazardous substance" under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act as of February 10, 2009 and made it unlawful "to sell, offer for sale, manufacture for sale, distribute in commerce, or import into the Untied States" any banned hazardous substance. The language Congress wrote does not permit me the flexibility to take into consideration the policy and economic issues that have been raised by you and your unidentified clients as to the potential consequences of requiring products to meet the new stricter lead limits by that date."

(Taken from a letter from the CPSC to  Arent Fox LLC).  You can read more here.

The term "Children's products" is way to broad - that could mean anything! This needs to be narrowed down to specific things such as toys, or clothes etc.

And a last comment from Scott...which I think sums it all up very nicely:

Lets remember these “clarifications” were made AFTER people have been emailing and phoning for days. Make no mistake, if they could have got away with it they would have. They tested the waters and when everyone reacted in a negative way they backed down.

I am thankful that it appears that the "panel" has decided to back down. I don't know if the CPSC has been receiving comments for some time, it appears that they have. The original article I quoted might have been published sometime ago before this went up for review...I only heard about this yesterday.I hope you can see why I used the word "banned"...it was  the word used by the CPSC  themselves.  I have not found the reference to the penalty (felony) but I haven't time to dig right now.

You can read more here. I think Barbara hit the nail on the head when she said "This is not the final word on the story and we need to keep alert and keep pressing for better clarification." I agree...although it appears that the worst is not going to happen, I think we need to remain vigilant during this comment period, press for clarification of the more ambiguous portions and be vocal with our opinions.  If we don't hold government in check, they will continue to whittle away at our freedoms!

Thanks so much for everyone's input!

Blessings,