Comments on: CPSIA: furor builds over toyless shelves

By: New York Times on CPSIA: “needless fears that the law could injure smaller enterprises”

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:43:39 +0000

[…] could not be found. (”Either they take all the children’s books off the shelves,” she said, “or they ban children from the library.”) Or people like Chip Gibson, president and publisher […]

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:39:54 +0000

On the contrary, I believe the CPSC has now confirmed (as against some earlier speculation that had circulated to the contrary) that ordinary newly manufactured children's books, not just the vinyl play kind, are indeed subject to regulation under the law. For more, see this CPSC correspondence (PDF).

By: product safety is my life

product safety is my life — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:53:06 +0000

I am in charge of product safety for a major multinational company with a very substantial children’s business. Yes, the CPSIA is poorly drafted, unrealistic, and badly thought out. In short, it is a huge challenge for us, as it is for everyone. But it clearly does not apply to most children’s BOOKS. The only books it applies to are bathtub books and other books that are plastic or vinyl or designed to have play value in some way. Ordinary children’s books are not affected at all, and the libraries are being irresponsible in suggesting otherwise.

By: Dawn Michelle

Dawn Michelle — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:40:34 +0000

Hello,
I urge you to visit http://www.ReformCPSIA.org/. I am working with Rachele to gather supporters for the lawsuit. The site will have information regarding the suit and I will be updating it regularly – Please subscribe so that you may receive updates when posted.

If you are interested in participating in the lawsuit you may submit a request form via the website. Just follow the links and the form will be at the bottom of the page. You are under no obligation by filling out the form.

I also urge you to sign the petition I sponsor here: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/reform-cpsia-hr4040.html#sign

Sincerely,
Dawn Michelle
dlapolla@gmail.com

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:12:55 +0000

For all the talk on the left of the Precautionary Principle, it seems like it would be best applied to new regulations, and not scientific innovations. If only we could resolve to never pass a law until we can PROVE that we know all of the potential unintended consequences and side effects, the world would be a much better place. But I strongly suspect that advocates of said Principle would be horrified to think of the idea of it being applied to their own actions rather than someone else’s.

By: Holly Jahangiri

Holly Jahangiri — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:23:38 +0000

How about a warning on thrift stores that states: “Older products for children, such as [provide some examples, because frankly, I’m at a loss] may contain lead or phthlates in levels greater than the limits imposed by the CPSIA. Buy at your own risk.”

Make the parents liable if something bought at a thrift store harms their child.

How many MORE kids are killed each year because they ran out into the street after a toy or a pet that did NOT contain toxic substances? Let’s ban cars and balls and dogs.

The idea of protecting kids from harmful substances is laudable; the idea of penalizing unscrupulous suppliers and manufacturers who would carelessly or, as an intentional cost cutting measure, use substandard materials is also a good one. But that’s not what this law, as written, does.

By: Save Kids Resale

Save Kids Resale — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:07:17 +0000

Thanks so very much for writing about this issue.

We are angered that the CPSC appeared to attempt to intentionally squash mounting uproar over this issue by issuing this ‘supposed clarification’ – and sent it to the news media one full day before it appeared on their RSS Feed.

We don’t want to change our career! We don’t want to be bootleggers!
http://www.savekidsresale.com/

By: Wacky Hermit

Wacky Hermit — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:08:00 +0000

Thanks for blogging about this! May I encourage your readers to participate in the CPSIA mail-in protest? While I think the librarians are being slightly hyperbolic (IANAL but my reading of CPSIA indicates it doesn't mandate current collections of kids' books be pre-emptively destroyed), I find it so hard to believe that the same people who would want GM bailed out to save millions of jobs won't lift a finger to help those millions of jobs in the children's product industry that aren't asking for a handout. I really want to slap the PIRG types who think we should all just "figure it out" because we're expendable, evil businesspeople wearing our top hats and monocles and rolling around on the piles of money we saved by replacing organic cotton with pure lead in our products.