  Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1041 Registered: 08-2006 |
Forget recycling- The federal government is about to tighten the screws on Goodwill and other stores. We used to buy clothes for our kids at Goodwill. The federal government's Consumer Protection Agency is about to end such behavior and close down other stores besides. Wal-Mart and China will be a big beneficiaries. This is for our protection and it begins on February 10. The new law "mandates that all products sold for those age 12 and younger -- including clothing -- be tested for lead and phthalates, which are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable. Those that haven't been tested will be considered hazardous, regardless of whether they actually contain lead." "They'll all have to go to the landfill," said Adele Meyer, executive director of the National Assn. of Resale and Thrift Shops." http://www.latimes.com/busines s/la-fi-thrift2-2009jan02,0,20 83247.story http://www.wileyrein.com/docs/ publications/13763.pdf (PDF) The law that was passed- http://www.cpsc.gov/cpsia.pdf These clothes won't even be allowed to ship out of the country. Congress, the same Congress that assigns your children debt, is now so out of touch that it is removing affordable clothing options from the poor. Making it illegal to re-sell ANY used children's products including toys and clothing includes car seats, cribs, children's' beds, and Barbie Doll collections. Garage sales and E-Bay sales might be curtailed. How can the federal government even regulate this if these items don't cross state lines? If you as a business owner don't test your products, and even if you aren't aware of this law, you can be fined up to $15 million and get up to 5 years in prison. They can seize all of your assets. They give special protection to "whistle blowers" by encouraging employees to report you. Where is President Obama on this? I dug up the final House of Representative and Senate roll call votes to see who was representing us in this matter and who was representing Walmart and China. It was worse than expected. House of Representatives vote - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200 8/roll543.xml ( Yea, Ron Paul!!!) Senate vote - http://www.senate.gov/legislat ive/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c all_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110& session=2&vote=00193 An Austin Texas TV station did an interview of young mothers who aren't sure how they will be able to afford clothes for their kids and a store owner faced with closure. http://www.kvue.com/news/top/s tories/010609kvue-kids_lead-me .466a87af.html#slcgm_comments_ anchor | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6050 Registered: 08-2004 |
I just read about this on the antique toys collectibles website (the antique toy collectibles market is a multi-billion dollar industry)... I think the government bit off more than they can chew on this one... Just wait until the EMAILs from collectors fills the congressional in-baskets... | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8954 Registered: 12-2003 |
Heh, heh...they just made EVERYONE a probable criminal. Time to start that FREE store that Jean Wilson has been talking about for the year or two that I've known her. These will be found before they hit the dumpster...amazing, someone grows out of something and gives it to you...both are criminals?! Charity held hostage? Not a chance... | ||
Sumas Member Username: Sumas Post Number: 551 Registered: 01-2008 |
Please, Please, tell me you are joking. I adore resale shops. Recycling is second nature to me. Even my kids, now grown, check out what is available for cheap. Our family passed around outgrown skates, toys, clothes, sport equipment and yard toys. Good example, Grandma still has toys that made a full circle of family members. One item, would be a Fisher Price car. My sister's kids, then mine, than another sister's than my brothers than Grandkids and now Great grandchildren. Don't these idiots have anything better to do in congress. Maybe they are so well paid, they don't appreciate the second hand toys and other items that bring fun and joy to kids in the rest of the nation. You are joking, right? | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 9115 Registered: 10-2003 |
My prediction is that in the end it will only apply to products made after the law comes into effect, not those sold after. And frankly, removing lead from toys young children stick in their mouth sounds ok with me. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3085 Registered: 02-2007 |
I had lead in my toys and it didn't emect me fentally. (Red Green joke) This whole lead thing has become more hysteria than anything else. In Europe with their ROHS standards and compliance. Should read that, what a joke. Many around the world say it is to slow the import of Chinese goods, as many contain lead. Of course for the Chinese, compliance means just one more sticker. | ||
Sumas Member Username: Sumas Post Number: 553 Registered: 01-2008 |
My favorite lead story is a spoon trivet. Flip it over and it said, "not for use with food". Huh! | ||
Det313grrl Member Username: Det313grrl Post Number: 413 Registered: 01-2005 |
Amazing, just fucking amazing. China can ship in melamine tainted food products, lead poisoned toys and who knows what else and now we can't even buy things resale. Fucking amazing!!! I will go without before I ever give Wal-mart a dime of my money. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 6298 Registered: 12-2005 |
They're still finding melamine here. From today's DetNews: quote:Minute, my ass. I want numbers. The only reason they added melamine was to fool the protein tests. If they hadn't added enough to fool the tests there would have been no reason to go to the trouble at all. Melamine is not a food. It's the plastic of which things like buttons are made. | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1485 Registered: 01-2008 |
What a dilemma!! The issue here is that the small businesses and individuals involved in the manufacture or resale of childrens' products and toys for lead and clothing for phthalates cannot afford the cost of testing, which can quickly and easily run into the thousands of dollars. This means that only large corporations will be able to afford certify their products as being lead and phthalate safe, of course, while passing the costs of doing so onto the consumers. It seems that even the legal counsel to the US Consumer Products Safety Commission (Cheryl Falvey) isn't quite sure how to interpret this law, for example, her response to Mr. K.M. Burke, CEO of the American Apparel and Footwear Association, that childrens' shoes would need to be tested for phthalates, but not for lead, as they are not considered toys that could be chewed or sucked on. She then ends the letter with a disclaimer stating that her's is only an opinion, and may be superceded by the CPSC itself, CPSC counsel, or the operation of law. IMO,Mr. Burke was not any better off than before he wrote to the CPSC...LMAO!! http://www.cpsc.gov/library/fo ia/advisory/318.pdf This is NOT the best "economic" of times to be fucking around with a portion of small business and self-employed individuals, the former that provides some thousands of jobs in the US, making it extremely difficult if not impossibly expensive for them to comply with this law. Most will be force to go out of business. So much for garage/rummage sale/thrift shops, ect.. as well, with used children's clothing and products being included. A customer could notice or make purchases, and blow the whistle on them. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 6299 Registered: 12-2005 |
I did find the term "yard sales" in the text of the law although it's not clear to me whether yard sales must comply with this. It was about informing people who hold yard sales. How on earth could anyone possibly even identify everyone who holds a yard sale? This law is simply unenforceable. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3091 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "This means that only large corporations will be able to afford certify their products as being lead and phthalate safe, of course, while passing the costs of doing so onto the consumers." Flanders I'd say you're on to something. And anyone who wishes to reverse this will be seen as irresponsible, environmentally speaking. Where is Gannon? | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2821 Registered: 08-2007 |
I heard some indication that Congress is working on exemptions for small businesses like thrift stores and personal sales like yard sales. Copied from another posting from 24 Hour News 8: "The Consumer Product Safety Commission will enforce the new law. A CPSC spokesperson told 24 Hour News 8 they are considering exemptions for small businesses to address growing concerns. The CPSC held a preliminary vote Tuesday to approve changes to the current law and add the small business exemptions. and a link to a video report: http://tinyurl.com/7785j2 (Message edited by gazhekwe on January 08, 2009) | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1486 Registered: 01-2008 |
This whole law and its timing, not to mention the strict and VERY short compliance window reeks of sheer idiocy on the part of the CPSC and Congress. It is obvious that they did not consider all of the implications involved, which will cost a great deal of time and money to rectify. The lead content allowable in childrens' toys shrinks from 600 ppm to 300 ppm by August. If a manufacturer can afford to pay a third party lab that is on the CPSC's approved list, to determine that their products do not exceed the allowable amount of lead by February 10th, then how many will need to have them rechecked for half that amount before August...LOL!! It is the cost and timing, and how many businesses that manufacture, import, or sell/resell childrens' furniture, toys, and/or clothing will find it increasingly difficult to obtain additional credit from skittish lenders, to stay in business anyway in the current US/global economic climate? If I were a lender/investor, I would not be very eager to finance or support a small business that is involved in childrens' products. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 17981 Registered: 11-2006 |
Remind me why liberals like big government/socialism? | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8249 Registered: 02-2007 |
remind me why government has gotten significantly bigger under republican/conservative administrations than it has under democratic/liberal ones? | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 9126 Registered: 10-2003 |
Note how the "liberals" here are considering this as an independent topic, and evaluating it as such rather than trying to use blanket ideologies to... ah, nevermind. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 17984 Registered: 11-2006 |
Because Bush is not a true conservative, when it comes to spending, he is a liberal Rb...you know that already don't you? More interesting is the logic of your argument. You say Bush is for big government, and that you are against GWB (and conservatives). Sound right? Well, exercise the syllogism and you must conclude that you (a liberal) are against big government (and all that it implies). That would make you a conservative.....welcome to the club. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8252 Registered: 02-2007 |
no one is ever a "true conservative" -- you just change your definition to suit your needs. Reagan presided in the largest peace-time expansion of government in history -- until dubya topped it. sorry, you seem to have a problem formulating syllogisms. a)I am against big government. b)bush has boosted the size of govt. therefore i am against bush is a better formulation. bush is for big government. i am against bush, therefore i am against big government is simply a conclusion that can not be drawn. I could be against bush for numerous other reasons: he's an incredibly arrogant, incredibly ignorant and incredibly incompetent ass; he's a war monger; he's from texas (not one of my reasons, but some don't like him for that reason, esp. other texans) QED -- your argument is flawed | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1487 Registered: 01-2008 |
This law was passed nearly unanimously by both the GOP and Democratic members of Congress, Ccbatson. "Liberals" are aware of the imperfections of government, but most are not willing to do a complete Batsonia, and throw the unregulated free-market doors wide open, and deal with the possible corrupt and criminal consequences later, if and when they are discovered. Regulation is necessary, proper in an organized society and required in order to for it to function properly. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 17988 Registered: 11-2006 |
Arrogance, ignorance, incompetence, being from Texas, and being a war monger (only the Texas point is accurate) are more important that the concept of individual property rights, liberty, and socialism versus capitalism to you Rb? Sad. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2824 Registered: 08-2007 |
Did anyone else notice that, as soon as CC gets on a thread, all discussion ends, and it just becomes a series of one-ups? Sad. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 7509 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yep, mea culpa. At one time this side of the board offered much more. | ||
Det313grrl Member Username: Det313grrl Post Number: 414 Registered: 01-2005 |
I totally agree with there, Jams. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 6303 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote:That's the goal of a troll. They're all about disrupting community. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 7510 Registered: 10-2003 |
Luckily, we still have posters like Qweek, your food thread and a few others. Hell, even the Chicks and Dudes threads are a breath of fresh air. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2825 Registered: 08-2007 |
Here ya go, so info that shows thrift stores are not included, except for recalled products: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 8, 2009 Release #09-086 CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772 CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908 CPSC Clarifies Requirements of New Children’s Product Safety Laws Taking Effect in February Guidance Intended for Resellers of Children’s Products, Thrift and Consignment Stores WASHINGTON, D.C. - In February 2009, new requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) take effect. Manufacturers, importers and retailers are expected to comply with the new Congressionally-mandated laws. Beginning February 10, 2009, children’s products cannot be sold if they contain more than 600 parts per million (ppm) total lead. Certain children’s products manufactured on or after February 10, 2009 cannot be sold if they contain more that 0.1% of certain specific phthalates or if they fail to meet new mandatory standards for toys. Under the new law, children’s products with more than 600 ppm total lead cannot lawfully be sold in the United States on or after February 10, 2009, even if they were manufactured before that date. The total lead limit drops to 300 ppm on August 14, 2009. The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children’s products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. 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. The new safety law does not require resellers to test children’s products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. 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. When the CPSIA was signed into law on August 14, 2008, it became unlawful to sell recalled products. All resellers should check the CPSC Web site (www.cpsc.gov) for information on recalled products before taking into inventory or selling a product. The selling of recalled products also could carry civil and/or criminal penalties. The agency intends to focus its enforcement efforts on products of greatest risk and largest exposure. While CPSC expects every company to comply fully with the new laws resellers should pay special attention to certain product categories. Among these are recalled children’s products, particularly cribs and play yards; children’s products that may contain lead, such as children’s jewelry and painted wooden or metal toys; flimsily made toys that are easily breakable into small parts; toys that lack the required age warnings; and dolls and stuffed toys that have buttons, eyes, noses or other small parts that are not securely fastened and could present a choking hazard for young children. The agency has underway a number of rulemaking proposals intended to provide guidance on the new lead limit requirements. Please visit the CPSC website at www.cpsc.gov for more information. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1043 Registered: 08-2006 |
It sounds like the government is backing off a bit but is not yet changing the law - just its selective enforcement. The phones must have been ringing. From the CPSC memo- "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." Is followed in the same paragraph by- "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." So thrift stores can sell used stuff if they can figure out which products don't have lead in them. If it turns out that the lettering on a T-shirt or the varnish on a crib does contain phthalates, bye-bye life savings. Someone with knowledge of what to look for could go from store to store purchasing items that were likely to have some lead and retain an attorney to sue each. If I can dream up this ploy, so can others. If Congress wants to prevent the excesses of its law, it has to re-write offending parts. So far we have been addressing retailers. The CPSC memo still requires and enforces mandates upon manufacturers. It looks like someone selling organic wooden toys will still have to comply with the $500-$4,000 cost of testing each product. Small producers will be punished and there is no remedy or tolerance for them in the CPSC memo. This retailer already had one German producer stop marketing products in the US because the testing requirements priced them out of this market. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =VvKFFvw2Nds&eurl=http://www.d igitaljournal.com/article/2645 07 | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 18059 Registered: 11-2006 |
Or perhaps nobody has substantive arguments to refute the points I am making. Or they agree with me. Logically, these are the only 2 possibilities. | ||
Alsodave Member Username: Alsodave Post Number: 621 Registered: 10-2003 |
Or they don't bother feeding the troll--a third and very logical possibility. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8269 Registered: 02-2007 |
"Arrogance, ignorance, incompetence, being from Texas, and being a war monger (only the Texas point is accurate) are more important that the concept of individual property rights, liberty, and socialism versus capitalism to you Rb? Sad." Bats, this comment has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. it is simply a redirection because i nailed you yet again on your faulty understanding of logic. | ||
Chrissy_snow Member Username: Chrissy_snow Post Number: 391 Registered: 07-2008 |
I wonder how this will effect eBay sellers - or rather, ebay itself? I'm sure they have enough money to lobby for more specific exemptions here, and we know that money talks! |
