Comments on: CPSIA chronicles, February 24

By: CPSIA chronicles, February 26

CPSIA chronicles, February 26 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:26:33 +0000

[…] conservative talk host Hugh Hewitt has continued his coverage of the law. Per one transcript, he discussed it with star columnist Mark Steyn who knew about the […]

By: Lora

Lora — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:53:45 +0000

I have been yelling and screaming about the H.R. 968 that was proposed on February 10th. It currently has 10 cosponsors.

This bill is the best thing we can hope for. Unfortunately, it makes no mention of pre 1985 books — but it offers a six month delay, with which we could utilize that time to fight for our beloved literary history.

Have you (or ANYONE for that matter) read this bill? Please do and support it if you haven’t already.

By: Tristan Benz

Tristan Benz — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:45:09 +0000

Well, perhaps we all ought to let our government bear the burdern of worry re: phthalates. NPR did a story that indicated manufacturers are replacing one chemical with another – and one of the new chemicals is apparently known to cause kidney damage in rats! If Big Brother knows best, I guess it falls on Big Brother’s shoulders when / if problems arise in future. I just posted a blog – a funny piece – and it touches on this aspect.

Ultimately, any law that causes 10 more problems (I know, I’m being kind) than it fixes isn’t one this mom with good, old fashioned common sense would have voted for…then again, I wasn’t consulted. You?

By: April E. Coggins

April E. Coggins — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:12:15 +0000

I am more worried about the phthalate ban than I am about the lead ban. Perhaps I am paranoid, but I have removed all childrens products from my store. Other than knowing that phthalates are sometimes used to make plastic more pliable, I know absolutely nothing about the composition of the plastics in my inventory. I’m a retailer, not a chemist, though I doubt that would be a convincing defense.

The phthalate ban as I understand it:

1. After February 10, 2009 no childrens products containing phthalates can be sold or distributed.

2. There is no extension for the phthalate ban, per a federal judge in New York.

3. The reason for the ban is that some studies may have linked reproduction complications to phthalates.

I can envision myself in twenty five years, defending myself from a guy who is not able to reproduce or a woman that claims her child’s birth defects was caused by my negligence. The risk is not worth the reward.

It is truly ironic that the plastic items that I sell are safety items, very unlikely to be chewed or eaten by a child. I no longer offer childrens helmets, for example. No more gloves, no chest protectors, no boots, no shin guards, etc.

On the bright side, there may be a provision to the CPSIA law which excludes children’s sporting goods. I might be okay to restock my store, though I am waiting for an official ruling.

It’s heartbreaking to see children come in and then go away dissappointed in my store, thinking that they are not welcome. Damn stupid government for putting me in this position.