Just a thought I am tossing out there...

[Former_Member]

I have been reading all this and yes,

I agree it is a bit far fetched to think that the governing powers will be able to actually enforce with any real consistency,

and I realize that doing good things for kids, and keeping them safe is good,

and I realize that small businesses will be hurt, which in turn will create more stress, less income, and that isn't good right now...

but a part of my brain is saying...

I want the safest possible environment for the future of our country, children, adults...
After all, ... we are all connected...

If a child dies, or if an adult slowly dies with a disease from something and we have the power to prevent those deaths, then maybe we should.

Organic, natural, clean, are all tossed out there ...and we jump on the band wagon...we help out with recycle, and go natural, and separate our bottles,...

but... "Hold the lead in our threads"
(so to speak) ... and we are suddenly against cleaning up our environment...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

I am torn... really .... I do see both sides...

If it happened to be my child, or your child that dies,
how will I / you ... feel ?

And yes, we do survive many things throughout our lives... and some are much more sensitive to chemicals, and etc... maybe, just maybe ... we are, in the long run, going to look back and actually not be so worked up about all this, and we might even say thanks for saving (my/ your/ our next door neighbor's ... child...

Love you all, Debi

[Assemblages]

the toxic stuff is from China & that is who the law should have applied to, but, the Chinese are holding our US debt, so, they made a blanket law... what is to stop a kid from getting lead from something they encounter on the street ?

[Former_Member]

I get what your're saying. I am a mom of 3 that is constantly looking for safe products for my kids but the problem that I have with this law is the way it is written and the complete lack of clarity. My fabrics are already tested and deemed safe by the new lead limits by the manufacturers that I buy them from. How on earth is it making anyone safer for me to test it again?! It isn't making it safer it is making more money for the "certified" labs.

[Former_Member]

Assemblages said:

the toxic stuff is from China & that is who the law should have applied to, but, the Chinese are holding our US debt, so, they made a blanket law... what is to stop a kid from getting lead from something they encounter on the street ?
__________

The toxic food is right here in out country. Many of the toys made in china are made for american companies.

Let's not blame it all on China, shall we?

[Former_Member]

I have no trouble with the idea that I should be responsible for making sure my products are safe. After all, many of them ARE for kids 12 and under.

But...... if I can go to any store and purchase, say, a onesie or bib which BY LAW has to be CERTIFIED lead-free (HAS to be as of this past Feb, since garments with non-fabric components were not exempted, so snaps and velcro make the whole garment non-exempt), take that onesie or bib home, dye it with dyes which are either completely lead-free or have so low a concentration IN POWDER FORM (let alone diluted and then laundered out) as to be considered lead-free, does it make sense to have me spend upwards of $500 to test the onesie AGAIN? And if I change sizes but use the same dyes, does it make sense for me to have to spend the money to have the garment tested yet again? How about if I use one color more or less or different - yep, would need to be tested YET AGAIN!! And ALL these things are LEAD-FREE to BEGIN WITH!!!

THAT is where I'm having a problem.

I wouldn't have any problem at all keeping all the MSDS sheets on file for all my dyes - if only that would be accepted. And all the clothing blanks I'd be using are already either certified lead-free or exempt in the first place - BUT once I dye them, I'm suddenly "the manufacturer" and they need to be tested once again.

Nope, does not compute.

[Former_Member]

"It's for the children!"

Battle cry of the nanny-stater and every politician who wants you to believe he knows best. Don't let it fool you, dmriceart. Government regulations and more government regulations will never make our children safer.

[Former_Member]

generations....

I burnt out a printer cartridge printing the MSDS sheets on all my mx fiber reactive dyes. :-)

Did you know that they (mx fiber reactives) are considered organic by Oko-tex standards? The standards that are already more stringent than the us in textile certifications. That is what amazes me. I'm using something that was already considered very very safe, free of metals (with the exception of turquoise- which apparently is still such a small ppb that it's almost undetectable.)

Allowing component certification should be enough. I wholeheartedly agree.

[Former_Member]

Lizzypops says:
Government regulations and more government regulations will never make our children safer.
----------------------------------------------------
Child labor laws, mandatory education, and food/healthcare for those children who can't afford it come to mind.

The OP made a good, balanced point. I think it deserves a fair response (like littlelottie and generations). I happen to believe those two are right btw - some sort of middle ground needs to be reached - if the construction pieces are tested then the final product does not need to be. So often, these types of rational responses are lost in threads filled with hyperbole, calls to overthrow the government and other foolishness (as bad as CPSIA itself).

[Former_Member]

Hmm. Yes, I think the testing should be enforced on imported items, especially from those countries we know send us toxic poisonous garbage!

But those who use only non-toxic components (as certified by the manufacturers of such components such as fabrics, paints, whatever) in their products should be exempt from this legislation.

I mean, how much lead is in the pine lumber you buy from Home Depot? Or the fabrics you buy from Joann? Or the certified non-toxic pain used to embellish the wooden product?

The testing reqirements are outlandish and excessive.

[Former_Member]

I am more than happy to know that my products all meet the ppb. I don't want to send anything toxic out there into the world. I would never want to harm a child in any way. I would like my government to allow me to KEEP selling these non harmful, non toxic products. I have over 100 different bows. I could never pay the thousands it would take to test 100+ products.

[Former_Member]

It would make more sense to say "no more children in automobiles."

[Former_Member]

I will go out on a limb here. The OP makes a good point, as do Generations (hi there!). However, as much as the hyperbole can get in the way, this is an intensely political issue. Not because safety should be, but because politicians have made it so and because we, as citizens, should have a say in how large government is going to get.

I am terribly uncomfortable with the argument "if it saves one child," not because I'm an uncaring b**** (my children may disagree some days), but because here we need to consider a balance. So, even though the materials I've read show that either no or a handful of children was injured at all by the toys, tens of thousands of businesses will close or be severely limited. How many of these employees' families will suffer economic hardship/bankruptcy/poverty? I'm not trying to frame this in a profit vs. safety argument here. But there are very real ramifications that go along with those (educational, health, nutritional, loss of opportunity) that should and need to be considered.

The other problem I have with that particular argument is that we may be on a slippery slope. WorldsDresser makes a good point that there ARE very good regulations out there; I cannot and will not argue that point, because I wholeheartedly agree. (I do believe that less regulation is best, but it needs to be *smart* regulation.) However, when groups (on either side) start exercising pressure to save everyone from everything, no matter what the cost on business or (dare I say it) our liberties, it seems that they're chasing utopian windmills. Personally, as imperfect as this country is and can be, I think it's as close as you can get. Where else can you have such wonderful and spirited (and open) discussions on issues?

Generations indicates very well a good balance that could be struck. Sadly, the politicians seem to have dug in their heels, rather than to step back and apply common sense. And to frame it in the emotion-driven arguments that many have is doing a disservice to rational thought.

The one good thing that has come of this (and I only speak for myself here) is that I have become far more aware of what I make and how I make it. I believe with all my heart that all of my items are "safe." But to look at it critically (and, yes, emotionally at times) is not necessarily a bad thing; it helps me to improve what I do and how I do it.

(That, and I've *met* some really cool and smart people on both sides who have helped to push me intellectually and to see different ways of looking at the issues.)

*Hyperbole done. I'm off to see the wizard*

[Former_Member]

I don't think the true argument is about who cares if there's lead...as long as it doesn't affect me-I think the true argument is the way the law was enacted/put into effect.
I for one am all for safe products for children and adults alike. Just wish they would have manufactures test products before they are available for consumers to buy, craft/create and use, then tell us we have to test after the fact and at our own cost (which is outrageous).
So many wonderful items pulled from shelves and discarded that could've and should've been made with safe materials-materials we bought in good faith deeming them to be safe because they were for sale for us at the stores we love venture to.
I believe the true culprits are the manufacturers and the brunt of their misuse of lead in their products falls on our shoulders to rectify or dispose of the items made with their unsafe materials.
For instance I went to buy a lamp from a store...I loved the look and features of it and just as I was about to put it into my cart I read the small print that the item caused AB&C and caution should be used when tossing out...I wanted the lamp originally for my teenage son and of course didn't buy it. But if it was known to be unsafe, why oh why was it for sale to begin with? And mind you this was several years ago.
Great care and caution on behalf of the public safety should have been taken long before now.

[bobbinalong]

There is a part to the whole subject of the safety issues I do not understand. Well yes, I understand, I just think they are out of line.

Part 1 - Within the last week, the subject of the tainted drywall has surfaced. I guess it has been used in thousands of homes and the defects are now surfacing and families are becoming ill. In Florida it is a major problem, to the point that one of the Senators has written to the President for help. It came from China.

Part 2 - Once the stay is over, I can buy yarn from a name brand manufacturer in this country. I can knit a pair of mittens for a mom. If I take the leftover yarn and knit a pair of mittens for her child, I must go through testing, labeling, etc. and the expense would be prohibitive. What happens if the mom holds the child's bare hands while wearing her mittens? Why is the yarn safe for the mom but not the child?

Why did the drywall from China get into the country, past the CPSC, and cover such a large area, thereby affecting so many people. Not enough inspectors? Not enough labs? But the yarn made in this country. We are going to make it jump through several testing procedures to be used.

There just doesn't seem to be enough balance. Something is off kilter. Common sense? Reasoning? How about all the children living in these homes with the drywall? This wasn't lead. How about a kids' ride home from school on a school bus with no seat belts? Cost prohibitive? A safety issue? Are seat belts on buses safe or not safe?

So much uncertainty on one hand. On the other hand, glaring hazards.

[Former_Member]

DMRiceArts,

Good point you make. It sounds like the popular peanut allergy debate. My daughter's school banned peanut products following a couple of scary incidents involving students having serious allergic reactions. Some parents were up in arms, saying "That's all my child will eat!". When there was a peanut product recall a few months ago after peanut butter had gotten contaminated with salmonella and was causing deaths, I thought of those same parents and wondered if they were having any trouble finding something else for their children to eat then. Somehow, I think that, with their child at risk, they made other decisions...

[Former_Member]

If you think this is looney, wait 'til you see what Waxman & Markey are up to next & it's on a "fast track" to passage! These people have certainly lost their collective minds!
A very unhappy voter,
Helene

[Former_Member]

Thanks to all who are responding. On any given day, I see both sides to this, and that is what bothers me the most.

As for

"Don't let it fool you, dmriceart. Government regulations and more government regulations will never make our children safer."

I agree.

It is not the 'more' that is needed, here... it is balanced, and logical that is needed. I am wondering if it will ever be both.

It is my hope that by tossing the ideas out there, we all have a say... and hopefully, someone of the 'powers that be' ... will hear the voices of reason, in our discussions.

I often wonder what laws are already on the books that the government has not 'followed through with in the first place'...

[Former_Member]

I'm glad you got what I was trying to say, dmriceart :)

When government hyperregulates and sticks its nose in everything, it (a) does so at the behest of very large corporations who (i)are the beneficiaries of government welfare and (ii) can therefore afford to comply with the regulations when their smaller competitors can not.

Excessive interference by the government also draws the population into complacency and a disgusting sense of entitlement. "Take care of me!" "There ought to be a LAW!"

It also puts the onus of compliance on an already bloated government apparatus whose multitudinous regulatory tentacles are frequently (shockingly enough, considering) underfunded and poorly staffed. So there's no way to enforce the regulations, which means it's actually easier for companies to slip under the radar and slack on quality or safety while still stamping the "I'm compliant!" label on their products.

Here's where the public complacency comes in, because "it's got the government label, and my government loves me, so it must be safe!" Then people die.

The only way for this to work is for complete transparency. For people to be able to see for themselves what the products they buy are made of - the information doesn't need to be plastered all over, but if inquiring minds want to know, they should be able to find out. Then the responsibility is placed back in the courts of the producers and the consumers.

A producer does something that causes injury? Well, there are plenty of laws already on the books regarding assault, reckless endangerment, fraud, murder and whathaveyou, all of which can cover the malfeasance.

That peanut producer, for example, should be charged with murder.

Regulations don't actually make anyone safer. They just fool people into *thinking* they are, which is actually more dangerous.

[Former_Member]

To add to the peanut case parallel. The man who knowingly continued to produce tainted peanut paste did so knowing that the regulatory apparatus, if it struck him at all, would do so with little more than fines and, at most, a stay at tennis club prison.

What's the deterrent in that?

Hang a felony murder charge over his head, and maybe he'd have thought twice.

No extra regulations would have been needed or helpful.

[Former_Member]

Indeed, Lizzy, you are correct.

If the people in charge would be appropriately PUNISHED there would be a more voluntary movement to check products for substances. Fines are not punishment, especially when companies get to make installments to offset the pain or it comes from an insurance settlement. You need real charges, and real jail time - and not in Club Fed, either.

Fines are to feed the govt trough, and nothing more. The govt would much rather collect money than actually solve the issue.

[Former_Member]

Bingo, Fabric.

[Former_Member]

Lizzy, and Fabric...

Your thoughts are so true...

Thanks for being here, really!
It is good to hear other voices* on this, other than those in my head...

Your voices of logic and reason ... ! :O)

[Former_Member]

they may not be able to strictly enforce EVERYONE to test, but if you use toxic items, and you get caught... you'll be hung out to dry.

be safe... and know your supplies.

:)

it helps us all in the handmade market if we all are cautious and safe, and diligent about not using leaded items for our products.

the law's intent is noble... it only goes to over regulation when you're forced to spend $750 to test an item made from materials you carefully purchased for their non-toxic certification.

[Former_Member]

The problem is that there is no lead in US thread. There is no lead in the fabrics being manufactured and sold in the US today. There is no lead in the Certified Non-toxic hobby paints that are used to create the US handcrafts that are most effected by this law.

This law was a knee-jerk over-reaction to BAD CHINESE IMPORTS - but you see, we cannot offend China by singling their products out as bad and requiring only them to be tested. No we don't like to offend anyone except our own struggling citizens who are desperate to find any way to make a few extra dollars while family members are out of work. And despite the initial protests of the Toy Industry they seem to have no problem with CPSIA now - and they are the ones to benefit from the elimination of all of the little guys out there who can never afford to keep up with the on-going, testing requirements.

[Former_Member]

Pastperfect,

It really isn't just China... They were 'caught', yes... but if you think about the companies involved, I have to agree that part of the blame must also be put on the USA companies that went to China for the low cost of manufacturing, in the first place. I don't believe they were as naive as we make them out. In trying to 'save a buck, the companies went to the lower costs, which means lower quality/care in most cases, in big companies...

It is a circle of events that have created this problem. JMO, but I agree with one post in this thread that said we can't 'only' blame the Chinese. Heavens, that is so not right to do, to any one country. The whole country didn't create the problem. The manufacturers of the toys, etc... no matter what country ... should have been following the laws in place...before the products ever hit the retail stores.