Finally heard from Sue Myrick

[happywhosits]

I received this e-mail today from my Congresswoman in response to an e-mail I sent in December 2008:

"Thank you for contacting me regarding The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. Your views are important, and I appreciate you taking the time to share them with me.

As you know, in recent years there has been growing concern regarding the lead content of commonly available children's toys. Random testing on commercially available products has, in some cases, shown lead levels that many medical professionals feel could be harmful to children. In response to these tests, many major toy companies were forced to issue massive recalls of their products.

In order to avoid this and similar such situations in the future, The Consumer product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 was introduced in Congress and passed with bipartisan support last year. The President then signed the bill into law on August 14, 2008. This bill treats as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) any children's product containing more than specified amounts of lead, and it requires strict testing to make sure that products that come to market are safe for children.

However, it has come to light that there may be unexpected consequences to these new precautions. Specifically, there has been a concern that secondhand stores would no longer be able to take donations or sell second hand children's products without testing for unsafe lead levels first. Such testing at the secondhand level would be cost prohibitive and could seriously hurt families who choose to shop at discount stores.

Thankfully, on January 8, 2009 the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) released a statement to clarify this issue. The CPSC explicit stated 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, phthalates standard or new toy standards

There has also been concern that these regulations could put small producers of children's toys out of business, as they would be unable to afford to test their products. However the CPSC recently recognized that due to this complication the law can not be fairly implemented without further clarification. That is why on January 30, 2009 The Commission voted to suspend enforcement of many of the new regulations for a period of one year. This extra time will allow the Commission to re-evaluate its enforcement plan, and I am extremely hopeful that it will be able to enforce the new anti-lead regulations without harming small producers.

Sincerely,

Sue Myrick

Member of Congress"

So we can see they are all lining up behind the party line that it's all gonna ok, there is no need to change the law.

Eileen...

[Former_Member]

Every time I see a letter like that I almost want to scream.....the so-called exemption for thrift and charity stores and libraries (many shops are pulling their children's products anyway) don't help us, and the stay to "re-evaluate the enforcement plan" won't do anything for us in and of itself. The only thing that will truly help is for CPSIA to be either severely amended or entirely scrapped.

:::sigh::: Preaching to the choir, I know, I know.....

[bobbinalong]

This is where I would fire back another letter to this Congresswoman and lay it on the line. She doesn't get it.

[Former_Member]

They don't seem to get it after repeated contacts, it's so frustrating! They must be getting thousands, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands, of letters and emails and phone calls--you'd think it would've sunk in that there's a problem by now?? It's like they're living in a little bubble where they can only hear opinions that validate their beliefs.

And I still don't see how the people on these committees can justify ignoring people outside their districts who contact them about the issues their committees deal with, these committees make decisions that affect the WHOLE COUNTRY, after all....

[Former_Member]

Write her back and let her know that there are CPSIA reform bills in committee in both the Senate and the House. Let her know that if she would like your support when it comes time for reelection she must support the reform bill.

[Former_Member]

Makes you wonder what about this law is so important that it is worth putting so many people out of work at a time when our economy is tanking even further. We must be missing the real target of this law, could it be books?

[Former_Member]

VintageE, I think you've hit the nail on the head. There is always something sinister behind something this sweeping. You can usually ferret it out by following the money - who benefits by putting small manufacturers out of business, who benefits from the testing procedures, etc. Or is it just a power grab for those that enforce the law. Maybe the CPSC is just looking for a bigger budget. We may never know.

[Former_Member]

While I'm not personally affected as much by CPSIA as many others are, I am truly concerned about the effect of this kind of blind, broad-reaching governmental control.

Honestly, I think the ones who win in this situation are the big toy manufacturers who the bill was supposedly targeted towards in the first place! Seriously, think about it - they can afford the testing fees, so that's no big deal to them. Who gets hurt? Small handmade producers. So, who benefits from hurting small handmade producers? Well, that would be the big manufacturers, right? There's been such a movement towards buying local, buying handmade, and crafts in general lately - it pulls customers away from their products. So, to save themselves, they get a bill like this passed (with deals & lobbyists behind the scenes, perhaps) under the guise of protecting children.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it all fits!

The same kind of legislation was recently targeting bath & body manufacturers. It would have required a $2000 per year registration fee, plus some other paperwork type requirements. It would also charge suppliers $10,000 per year if they import of ingredients that they supply to us (regardless of an safety testing, etc) - just a fee for importing goods. It was a last minute amendment to a food safety bill that was the result of the food contamination scares we've had in recent years - and the idea is good...to make cosmetics safer. But here again, the big cosmetics companies wouldn't flinch at a $2k per year fee, whereas the small companies (like myself) would be hurt or forced out of business and those of us who survived would face cost increases since our suppliers would have to hike their prices to cover their $10k fees. The kicker...for that $2k per year, we'd get no real safety protection, no more actual enforcement of current protection guidelines, etc. The legislation's on hold right now after a big grassroots movement similar to what's happened with CPSIA, but looks like it's gearing up again.

I'm all for safety and protecting our children and ourselves, but the government is overstepping their bounds on so many levels lately that it quite honestly scares the hell out of me!

[happywhosits]

All, I will be responding to this e-mail - I just need to take a deep breath and be rational about it. Right now I am too angry/frustrated to respond!

Eileen...

[littlegirlPearl]

UGH! Good luck with your response. Remember, keep emotion out of it, and stick to the facts.

[Former_Member]

So frustrating! I got a somewhat similar letter from one of my Senators which had the gall to direct me to the CPSC website. As if I couldn't quote it to him by HEART at this point. He is promptly getting another letter from me. Complete with printouts from the CPSC website with the pertinent stuff highlighted.

Jeez.

[NotMyTreeStore]

This might come across as sounding naive, but I don't see what's so wrong with her response. She's saying that she understands small business concerns, knows resale concerns, and that things will be changed. Whether she mentions change through amendments or enforcement is just a matter of semantics. I don't know what she could have said that could have been more positive. No politician in his or her right mind is going to say that it's a horrible law that needs to be scrapped, even if that's what she really believes (and I don't know if Sue Myrick believes that or not - just saying). I am happy with her response, really.

[Former_Member]

I did an investigative article on the National Animal ID program a few years ago-it was putting the smaller animal suppliers out of business and let the bigger lots get bigger. This is the same thing-maybe lobbyists have pushed for this law because sales for the "BIG Companies" have gone down due to sites like etsy? It takes away all the competition.

[Former_Member]

I got a similar response from one of my state senators. It began: "Dear Toymaker". In my one page letter to the senator, I explained that I made cloth (cotton) birthday bags and included one of my brochures. I explained that many of my items were one of a kind items and that I was not unlike many other small and home based manufacturers and that the current testing requirements for lead were unnecessary. The response never addressed any of the points. I drafted a response and sent it but have not gotten a reply. It was hard to keep my anger in check but I tried!

[Former_Member]

What's "wrong with it" to me is that she seems to be taking the "The CPSC issued a stay and it's not a big deal" tack. A number of these letters from lawmakers have referenced the stay like it's some sort of fix-all, when in fact the stay addresses a limited number of issues and materials. It doesn't actually exempt anyone from liability; a LOT of thrift stores are reducing or even cutting out children's items because they're afraid of a what-if scenario, which the CPSC can't really protect them from.

It's NOT "ok." And if the CPSIA isn't amended before February 10th of next year, it's not gonna BE "ok." Lawmakers don't seem to really grasp that, that a "stay" isn't a "fix," and that Congress NEEDS to FIX the law, sooner rather than later.

That's how I see it, anyway. :-)

[NotMyTreeStore]

GenerationsTieDye, I can see what you're saying, but I didn't get the "it's no big deal" vibe from her letter at all. In fact, this paragraph from her response indicates that she seems to know that it is a big deal, and changes are in the works:

"There has also been concern that these regulations could put small producers of children's toys out of business, as they would be unable to afford to test their products. However the CPSC recently recognized that due to this complication the law can not be fairly implemented without further clarification. That is why on January 30, 2009 The Commission voted to suspend enforcement of many of the new regulations for a period of one year. This extra time will allow the Commission to re-evaluate its enforcement plan, and I am extremely hopeful that it will be able to enforce the new anti-lead regulations without harming small producers."

She doesn't say not to worry or that the stay fixes things or anything like that. She said they recognize the complications with the law, it's unfair to small business, and that they are re-evaluating things. To me, that means changes will happen. That's how I took it.

[Former_Member]

Well.... she says that she hopes the CPSC "will be able to enforce the new anti-lead regulations without harming small producers." No mention of Congress doing anything, or intending to do anything.

She also doesn't mention that the CPSC's ruling exempting resellers from testing doesn't exempt them from liability; that seems to come as a surprise to lots of people, but it would be nice to see lawmakers not only mention the ruling but go so far as to indicate understanding of ALL the ramifications.

[NotMyTreeStore]

She mentions fair implementation and not harming small producers. Since I really don't see how either one of those things will be possible without radical, sweeping changes in the law itself, which only Congress can do, I guess I'm taking it to mean that the law will be amended. She can't come out and say that, or say that the law is horrendous as written, or that she disagrees with it, since that would label her as being "someone who doesn't care about the safety of children." I think she's being a politician who is saying everything she can without voting herself right out of office.

[CarolynsDoodles]

I am really new at Etsy ( yet to set my shop, looking to do so soon) so- hearing all this about the BIG GOV'T HAND --(AGAIN!) what exactly is the new act about and how far reaching is it ?? I am an artist painting on wood and canvas-should I be worried ??

[Former_Member]

Jakboutique, I see your point. I guess I've seen so many letters saying almost exactly the same thing, with the same wording, and no mention of Congress even thinking about doing anything above and beyond what's already in place has me somewhat jaded. I've been back and forth with my own Congressman about this and all I get from him (or rather his staff) is, "Thanks for letting us know. I'll look into it," if I get any response at all, anyway.

Just once it would be refreshing to see a note from a lawmaker that says, "Yes, we goofed, and I'm working on a plan to fix it," or "You make some great points, and I'll be working with X to take some action to address your concerns." I know they probably don't want to commit, by and large, to anything that might be construed as a position that one or another of their constituents might not find palatable, but it would be refreshing to see someone COMMIT to SOMETHING other than the status quo.

I'm such a starry-eyed idealist, can ya tell? :-D

[Former_Member]

Carolynspaintings, as long as you're not marketing ostensibly or indirectly to the 12-and-under crowd, you're in the clear as far as the CPSIA is concerned.

[NotMyTreeStore]

GenerationsTieDye says:
Just once it would be refreshing to see a note from a lawmaker that says, "Yes, we goofed, and I'm working on a plan to fix it," or "You make some great points, and I'll be working with X to take some action to address your concerns." I know they probably don't want to commit, by and large, to anything that might be construed as a position that one or another of their constituents might not find palatable, but it would be refreshing to see someone COMMIT to SOMETHING other than the status quo.

******

Absolutely. I would have such respect for a politician who could stand up and say, "You know, in retrospect, I'm sorry I was ever involved in the passage of this law because I can see how ridiculous it is now. I goofed. I'm working to change it." Unless he or she had another job lined up and didn't care about re-election, though, I don't see it happening :-). So I'll take what I can get - which, in this case, is clinging to hopes and reading between the lines and crossing my fingers that the powers that be come to their senses and fix what they messed up.

[MyTheta]

Did you read about the lawsuit? Part of the spark:
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2008/12/15/daily7.html

Not the greatest article, there are plenty more...

[Former_Member]

Thanks, MyTheta. You're right, it's not a great article. And the suit doesn't force the company to follow the CPSIA; that it's federal law does.

While I think this is how the system should work, doesn't $12 million seem low to be punitive to such a large company?