I had a thought...

[Former_Member]

... well one of MANY that have been going through my head the past few months about this. You know how books are on the hit list, right? I think the outcry over that can be used to our advantage here. There is NO way that libraries are going to ban kids or get rid of books. There is NO way that schools are going to chuck the supplies they have an start over. I really think that parental and community outcry over that will be HUGE. So... say the CPSC/Congress comes out and says that books are off the hook. They will most likely use the rationale that printing inks are absorbed by paper (which is inherently lead free) and become part of the substrate (which is one of the teeny, tiny parts of the law that could already be construed as an exemption). The next logical conclusion to that would be printed/dyed fabric meeting the same requirements. If this law starts getting exemptions made to it... the floodgates will open. Which, come to think about, is probably WHY the government has been so reluctant to make ANY exceptions thus far in writing.

[Former_Member]

I totally agree! And, they need to add non-toxic acrylic paints to the exemption list, too. :)

Maybe now that it is affecting our school systems, the national media will jump on it. We'll see...

[LaurieRyan]

Oh it already is!!!!!!!!! speaking of which I do need to write another letter to our new pres. and we need to nag him about oil prices again, our economy cannot take any more $3+ gas prices again this year

[Former_Member]

I think that the flaws that are built into this law will bring it down. Of course we are standing by and ready to help!

[Former_Member]

they need to remove the whole testing part of the law, all together.

keep the rest.

next time mattel thinks it's okay to pay $.65 to make a barbie and sell it for $16.95, they should fear the possibility that if it contains lead, they will not be simply slapped on the wrist next time.


it sucks, because the spirit of the law is good.

but the testing measure is really only needed and applicable at the major manufacturing level.


that's the cost of doing high volume business overseas.

i shouldn't have to feel that burden.

my products are completely overseen by me, start to finish.


and even if i bring in a few seamstresses later, i'll still be there, overseeing my production.



it makes us all look like criminals... we're all suspect, and we all must test and prove innocence.


but, how do you get that message out?

where are numbers for recalled toys that are actually made by small businesses, manufactured HERE... for high lead limits?

[Former_Member]

I've been blogging about this in the writing forums I'm a member. Writers are book lovers - and they love to write. I'm hoping they'll write letters, blog posts, articles. . .

Keep spreading the word all!

[Former_Member]

what's your blog?

[Former_Member]

It seems so stupid that they are making us prove over and over and over by ongoing testing that fabric is safe. Instead they need to prove that it isn't safe first. The only cases I have seen where fabric wasn't free of lead was an shirt what had something extra painted onto the front of it.

[Former_Member]

It isn't a public blog. It's on writing.com. I mostly talk about my writing journey and where I'm submitting stories, what rejection letter I get, etc. But this affects writers (it affects everyone) so I am trying to spread the word beyond the handcrafting community.

Also, like many others, I get a lot of disbelief when I mention these things, especially about books. I've found that links to the ALA (American Library Association) articles are legit enough to convince some folks.

Here are some:
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alsc/issuesadv/cpsia.cfm
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/governmentinfo/cpsia/index.c...
http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2009/January2009/cpsia.c...

[Former_Member]

Oops. Looks like those last 2 links got cut. Trying again:
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/governmentinfo/cpsia/index.cfm
http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2009/January2009/cpsia.cfm

[Former_Member]

lillipops...I agree with what you're saying. I think that the floodgates were opened when they said that resale shops don't have to test. I could buy a new toy today and let my child play with it for a day and then donate it to a thrift shop. They can sell it without testing. But, if the identical toy is still new on a retail shelf on the 10th and hasn't been tested it can't be sold. To me that's a huge double standard. Maybe double standard isn't the right term, but you probably understand what I mean. Some people (thrift shops) can use their judgement when it comes to what needs to be tested, but the rest of us can't? Huh?

[Former_Member]

hahah, yeh, sugar... it's okay to sell that used toy, but you can't mail it, because it's hazardous waste!

if i were waxman, i'd be running for cover too... they didn't think this through, at all.

[bobbinalong]

I feel that with a President with young kids, that if he sees this law and what it is doing, he and his group will have something to say. And it will be positive for every parent and grandparent, and us, and for kids everywhere, homes, schools, libraries, whereever.

[Former_Member]

Karabu, if reading about it in the ALA online newsletter doesn't convince someone that there is something wrong with this law, I'm afraid that nothing will. Such a huge plus for everyone to have them involved with this struggle to fix this mess.

[Former_Member]

Don't forget day care centers! If they get hit, you'll really see some parents up in arms.

[Former_Member]

I think it's crazy.

[decalmonograms]

staceyJEANonline says:
they need to remove the whole testing part of the law, all together.

keep the rest.

next time mattel thinks it's okay to pay $.65 to make a barbie and sell it for $16.95, they should fear the possibility that if it contains lead, they will not be simply slapped on the wrist next time.


Actuqally- Mattel was NOT just slapped on the wrist for this...the company itself was fined a ton and b/c of that and the economy it has laid off TONS of employees. Just b/c it may cost a small amount to make a barbie there is still the cost of getting it to it's destination, packiging, advertising...it all adds up.