Curious...Any Actual Harm?

[TheScarletWood]

I've been really frustrated and overwelmed by all of the CPSIA regulations! Personally, I think that the consumer should decide what items/materials they would like to purchase. Anyway...

I am just curious. Have there been any documented cases of children acutally being harmed by lead (in the few toys that have had lead paint) or by phylates?

[Former_Member]

it's fear-mongering in my opinion

Here's a blog post by Rick Woldenberg that addresses the issue: http://learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com/2009/06/cpsia-op-ed-in-roll-call-6-1-09.html

[Former_Member]

Well, I believe lead poisoning is a quite established fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning

[Former_Member]

Of course lead poisoning happens. she asked about children being harmed by toys.

[JadeCreations]

As a mom I buy and use my common sense on what I will let my baby put in his mouth. I basically go for no embellished items unless it is something fabric design wise and then it must besecurely sewn on.

I think the regulations are crazy considering the supplies can be purchased then the the small business is supposed to test them? That doesn't make sense to me. For example why should a onesie with snaps then be tested by the crafter when he/she was able to buy it in the first place?

[Former_Member]

I hear what you say and I like the idea of choosing for my kids with my common sense.
Unfortunately tho, there are some of my relatives that will buy the strangest things for my kids and some regulations are kinda in order.

[ItzFitz]

these regulations are just another example of whats going on with this world 'these days'..
as a person, we are not held responsible for your our decisions and choices.. just about every thing we willingly choose to do can be 'undone' by a lawsuit of some kind.. with no one holding us to our own initial decision in the first place. when we act on our own free will,and something turns out wrong or ends up being harmful, even though good ol' common sense told us not to do it or its a bad choice.. we can then hold someone else hugely responsible for letting us do that thing, eat that food, drink that drink, play with that toy..
dont think so..?
remember the old mcdonalds hot coffee law suit.. whoever it was sued mcdonalds for her spilling her coffee on herself, and it was hot. go figure! she bought a coffee and it was hot! shocking!

this is also why people blame movie and rock stars and *ahem* atheletes for corrupting the kids and morals..
wrong.

sorry if this seems a bit much, but i cant help but see the bigger picture here and what all this translates back to..
and then america is shocked when the economy falls apart!
whos doing anything to make sure free enterprise is still alive and well?! not all these fearful and non-sensical guidelines!
ugh...
so frustrating..
i apologize.. after all, i did just finish cleaning my bathtub with bleach..

[isgood]

Yes, several children have been harmed by lead in charms and at least 1 death. Lead paint dangers to children have been common knowledge for at least a century and yet laws banning lead in household paint were not enacted until the 1970s in the US. You should have heard the grousing about that, too.

[isgood]

http://www.jewelry-weblog.com/50226711/lead_and_childrens_jewelry.php
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/safety/2009/09/lead-levels-in-childrens-metal-jewelry-jeffrey-weide...

[Former_Member]

The CPSIA regulations ARE frustrating and overwhelming, and definitely need to be revised so that they make sense. But the reasons they exist in the first place shouldn't just be ignored.

Every exposure to (ingestion of) lead and phthalates does harm. (You can look up both on wikipedia for a basic overview.) They're different toxins, but both build up in our bodies and never go away. The govt. is trying to limit peoples' exposure to them because decades of research has yielded overwhelming scientific/medical evidence that they cause cancer, brain damage, mutations to DNA that cause birth defects, etc. Children are affected the most, because they're the most likely to ingest the toxins and because their brains & bodies are still developing.

So while chewing on one Polly Pocket with lead paint on it may be just one drop in the bucket, eventually the bucket is full. Kind of like smoking one cigarette wont give you lung cancer. But you can't know ahead of time whether your bucket will hold 1,000, 10,000 or 50,000 cigarettes. The wise thing to do is not smoke them at all. know what I mean? That analogy doesn't quite work though, because no one has passed a law saying that adults can't decide to kill themselves with cigarettes. You wouldn't think there would have to be a law against buying a child 10,000 cigarettes. but a lot of parents don't have any problem exposing their kids to second-hand smoke, they insist the concern about it is just fear-mongering.


I've never quite understood the reasoning behind the statement that the consumer should decide what items/materials they would like to purchase. (I'm assuming you meant instead of being told by the gov't what's okay and what isn't. It comes up a lot in this particular forum, so I'm kind of filling in the blanks. I apologize if this isn't related to what you meant.)

First of all, how is a consumer able to decide whether or not they want to purchase an item based on what's in it if there's no way for them to determine what's in it? We can't use our five senses to tell whether or not a toy contains lead or phthalates. Without regulations re: content and labeling, you aren't going to have anything to base your decisions on.

Second of all, I understand that a lot of folks mistrust the gov't in general, but assuming that we could just see the difference, what kind of person would lament being deprived of the option to buy toys that cause cancer?
I don't believe that parents should have the right to decide to poison their own children. (sadly, I seem to find myself in the minority here whenever I try to explain that. I usually get a least one convo from someone I've really pissed off, insisting that they know better than Congress does how to take care of their own kids.)

...and if buying it shouldn't even be an option, then selling it can't be either.
That's the part where I usually lose people. 'cause what I'm really hearing isn't parents who want to buy carcinogenic toys, but sellers who would prefer to be able to sell whatever they want to without having to know or care what's in the materials they're using, and pass that responsibility on to "consumers" because it's a big pain in the butt and it takes so much time and money to do it right that it's not worth doing. and they're right, it is a big pain in the butt! But just because the "solution" is crappy doesn't mean that the problem isn't real, eh?

-departing from soapbox-

[isgood]

Amy, thank you! {{{Clapping}}}

[Former_Member]

ItzFitz says:

remember the old mcdonalds hot coffee law suit.. whoever it was sued mcdonalds for her spilling her coffee on herself, and it was hot. go figure! she bought a coffee and it was hot! shocking!
.......

Yes, I do remember. Do you? It was an older woman, and she needed to have multiple skin graft operations on her thighs and um- crotch area after her skin peeled off. Go figure!

sorry, but if my McDonald's coffee was that hot, I'd be SHOCKED, and so would you.
In my world, good ol' common sense would mean not serving beverages that are literally scalding hot and cause severe burns, permanent scars and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills. Do you really believe that she acted on her own free will when she accidentally spilled it and should be held responsible for deciding to do that to herself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

[Former_Member]

i think you dont have much to worry about if your making everything with good qulity items and really watch what products your using.

but yes the topic about lead has been in papers and in the new more then once

[Former_Member]

No she should be held responsible for sitting in the puddle caused by the hot coffee for a minute and a half after she spilt the cup. Did you know that the most common type of skin burns, scalding 1st & 2nd degree scalding burns, are caused by having your own water heater set above the first 2 clicks on the dial? So why should a water heater company be even allowed to have any setting higher than this? One answer is to effectively clean your dishes that they are bacteria free with out special soaps the water does need to be at least near boiling.
It's all about balancing personal responsiblitly with corporate responsibility

[ItzFitz]

i didnt mean to sound like a jerk with what i said-but i wont back away from the fact that in todays world being and doing responsible things seems to hardly ever be the burden of the person actually doing them..
of course its terrible that the lady had to have surgeries to fix her scars and burns no matter her age, and i personally dont know all the details..
but i do stand by my point that alot of liability is taken off people who are liable.. but all this is neither here nor there at this point..

amy- i do agree with you, we shouldnt make a grossly negligent product and leave it up to whoever to buy it.. guidelines are def. good-we all need rules! but when it gets to the point that as a small business it will cost a huge amount of money to get product tested and the sell them with no hopes of making a profit after paying the testing costs.. i cant help to think what are they really telling us..

if costs were reasonable, and the testing and guidelines were reasonable then who can argue.. but all added up together its just pushing a ton of people out of business over something that maybe should be rethought and reworked..

[ItzFitz]

jewelrydesignsbyME - thank you...

[Former_Member]

The woman who scalded herself with her coffee scalded herself. Suing McDonald's was lame. I don't care how old she was. Did it hurt? I'm sure it did. I've burnt myself on coffee too. And on other things. And did I sue anyone? No. Because I BURNT MYSELF. Hospital? Aw. See, I know I'm supposed to be all sympathetic, and I would be, if she hadn't gone and sued McDonalds. Which is where my sympathy ends.

There is actual harm from lead and other chemicals. The CPSIA isn't going to stop it either. That's why the CPSIA is a bad idea, not because lead and other things aren't dangerous. They really are dangerous. So is a lack of personal responsibility. I'm not advocating for zero regulation, I'm advocating for sensible and effective regulation, and since that isn't forthcoming, I'm opposed to the CPSIA and the entire mentality that supports it.

[Former_Member]

An elderly woman should be held responsible for not jumping up out of a car in 90 seconds while being severely burned?

WJW

[Former_Member]

Concerning the CPSIA decision to ban painted toy sales in this country, I am of the opinion it is crazy. The problem seems not to be the selling of painted toys, but the selling of imported toys. Instead of, an across the board ban on selling painted toys, why not ban the importing of toys from certain countries or areas? If these items are not shipped in, they certainly will not reach our children. Sadly, we have became a country of importers rather than producers. America needs to return to our basic beginnings of producing, buying and selling our own handmade products. If every item has to be tested, Big Business can afford that, if it drives us small handcrafters out of the market, it is win-win for big business. Every one less toy we sell is one more potential sale for them. Conspiracy? Hmmmmmmmmm

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

No, but the elderly woman should be held responsible for sticking a cup of coffee, (obviously hot, that's how people drink their coffee) between her legs. How dumb is that!!!And was her nephew driving away while she was trying to open the lid and pouring in the cream and sugar? Probably! He wanted to get out of the line, and was probably tired of "old slow granny/aunty". If she had waited to get in a parking space, or if he had pulled into a parking space for her to add the cream and sugar, possibly the accident wouldn't have happened. Yes, coffee is hot, it's in a styrofoam cup. I can be dense sometimes, but there is no way I'd stick a full cup of coffee betweeen my legs.

[LeafandYard]

While I think you're right, amyblandford, I also think there are other ways to prove an item is safe that do not have to involve the destructive testing on the finished product that the law currently requires.

The crafting process does not change the chemical make-up of an item, so why can't supply testing be allowed? Say, for example, the manufacturer who makes the plastic eyes I use in my Gnomes tests the eyes and deems them safe. They can then pass on the cost of that testing to the hundreds of their customers. A $400 testing bill, for example, can be easily divided among 400 customers (and I'm pretty sure the big suppliers have more customers than that). But, I can't take that $400 testing bill and pass it on to my 10 customers.

The other part of the law that I have a problem with is their very subjective definition of a children's product. I didn't start collecting dolls until I was in college, but everything that is called "doll" has to be for kids. It doesn't matter that all of my customers are adults who are buying for themselves or to give to their adult friends (this is a fact that I know, not a guess). And it doesn't matter that I say my Gnomes are not made for children, but for adults like me who like to collect cute little things to help make my very stressful days a little bit better. But, amigurumi appears in doll categories by default, therefore they are dolls, therefore they are for kids. Even without this law, I would still be saying they are not, and it's not to get around the requirements of the law. I am not a manufacturer of children's products. I think the statement by the manufacturer should hold more weight than it does in practice, because sometimes dolls are for adults.

It's not that I don't care about safety, but the law as it stands is not doing everything it can to focus on safety without putting people out of business. It can, and it can be very simple changes, but that's not where it is right now.

[ItzFitz]

well put Fyre..

[Former_Member]

There has to be ways to keep lead out of items that we use daily. Children are around constantly. If there is lead in painted items in the home, whether they are items intended for children or intended for adults, the children are exposed. Even if children are not exposed while the item is in the home, when the item is finally disposed of, it probably goes into a landfill where the environment is exposed which is much worse.

CPSIA was a knee jerk reaction to a child being poisened by a lead charm. It was not clearly thoughtout and won't result in keeping lead out of children's environments.

Parents need a way of insuring what they buy is safe for their children. Reading labels only works if everything is on the label. No company is going to put "lead charm" on the label so how are parents going to tell what to allow the children to use or play with.

I don't have the answers - just many questions.

[maddiebee123]

I agree with Fyre as I have bodysuits made by carters in my shop that I will have to pull as I cannot afford the testing on these for the snaps at the crotch they have. My husband and I also have a crib that we cannot donate even though we have used it on both of our kids but everyone is so scared of cribs lately no one will take it. I just think people need to take some responsibility for the choices they make.

[maddiebee123]

woodcar I just read you post and yes United States need to support our own business but I think government today is more interested in controlling us than helping the small business.