Reasonable Regulations

[Former_Member]

I want to know what regulations and standards would be fair and reasonable for sellers of kids products on Etsy.

There are a lot of threads bemoaning government intrusion and saying that all regulation is tyranny. I just don't buy that. Corporations are accountable for the things they put out in the market, and just like the FDA sets minimum safety standards for drugs and the USDA sets minimum safety standards for food, the CPSA is setting minimum safety standards for consumer products, which is entirely appropriate.

What sucks, and what I take issue with, is that the CPSIA is skewed in the interest of big business: it places a proportionally larger burden on small companies and creates so many obstacles to complying that it effectively bars less capitalized companies from getting their product into the marketplace.

Given the toy recalls, lead poisonings and child deaths in recent years, I just don't see demanding a complete overturn of CPSIA as a winning or convincing argument. So what I'm wondering is, what are the regulations and standards that you, as a small manufacturer, could live with?

[Dannielle]

I could be happy if we are given the same freedom that thrift stores have been given: you are responsible for being lead and phthalate safe, liable if you're not, but expensive, destructive lab testing is not required.

[Former_Member]

I think that it is perfectly reasonable that I should have to have some sort of certificate stating that my supplies are all compliant. I am a mother of 3 (all under 12 y/o) and totally understand and agree with some standard of accountability for the makers of children's products. If I have a supplier that cannot present that their product is tested/safe, then I will find another supplier. The issue I have with this law is the thought that we should need to test (and pay for testing) on each component and on the finished product even though we have certification that our supplies are deemed safe.

[Former_Member]

Well, you are *always* liable for putting harmful products out in the marketplace.

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

Simply put, enforce those laws that are already on the books. And if those laws do need to be rewritten, determine what is realistic. Don't throw a blanket test everything for lead, when lead doesn't exist in the items and has never been proven to contain lead in excess of any imposed limit. Require those items that have been proven to pose risks to children be tested. What child has been harmed by reading a book from the library?

[Former_Member]

momosbows
momosbows says:
I think that it is perfectly reasonable that I should have to have some sort of certificate stating that my supplies are all compliant. I am a mother of 3 (all under 12 y/o) and totally understand and agree with some standard of accountability for the makers of children's products. If I have a supplier that cannot present that their product is tested/safe, then I will find another supplier. The issue I have with this law is the thought that we should need to test (and pay for testing) on each component and on the finished product even though we have certification that our supplies are deemed safe.
----
That makes sense to me. And the suppliers that value their market in childrens items, will eventually step up with certificates or loose their business.

[Former_Member]

weird.

Never thought I'd hear "Reasonably" and "CPSIA" in the same sentence....

[Former_Member]

Faye, I'm not asking libraries, I'm asking small manufacturers: what regulations to ensure consumer safety could you live with?

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

Books are also covered in this law. So any makers of books or printed matter are included.

[Former_Member]

Ok, but that wasn't the question.

[Former_Member]

I think the rules are fine (lead limits, phthalates ban, small parts, etc.) But instead of having us test stuff and then produce certificates (which could so easily be manipulated, like I send off one sample but then come home and use different paint anyway) the CPSC should do random sampling. Select a product and test it themselves.

Then the CPSC can really focus where they were intended to focus. At Walmart. At ToysRUs. On the docks as stuff is being unloaded from China.

This is what the IRS does, right? They tell us the rules. We have to comply. And we do it because we never know if we may be randomly selected for an audit. It's very effective.

[Former_Member]

I believe that the items we purchase to make our "creations" should have been tested by the manufacturer, declared lead-free and that declaration should be passed on to the crafter/artisan. I just think the burden should be on the manufacturer, not the consumer/crafter. ($405.50 for a pair of mittens is unreasonable!)

[Former_Member]

I like that idea, matsutake.

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

So do many of you agree that everything that is meant for a child 12 and under should be tested? You just want someone else to do it? I'm sorry that's just nuts in my opinion. If something has not hurt a child from lead content or has never been proven to contain lead so in reality is not hazardous, to just lay down and say, okay we will test it, is rolling over. So yes, we should have regulations for product that has excess levels for lead, but regulate those items, not everything.

[Former_Member]

This is one that gets me going. I spelled out my own little proposal of a happier world in this thread:
http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=6004651

I'd copy and paste it over, but it's rather lengthy, so I'll avoid bogging your thread down with it.

Simply put: disclosure, giving toy manufacturers certifications to aspire to, labeling of ALL manufactured materials containing lead and pthalates (on the level of initial production or importation), and outreach programs to educate the public and give them the resources to test their items at low cost.

[Former_Member]

Faye, so only things that have been proven to contain lead should be tested, in your opinion? So we all wait until *after* a child gets sick, then test for lead?

[Former_Member]

Nice, blynkenandnod. Similar to the Safe Harbor program at OSHA.

One point I'm iffy on is:
"Criminal penalties should exist, and be a legitimate threat for those who _knowingly_ manufacture and sell dangerous products"
Ignorance isn't a defense when you break other laws, why should it be in this case?

[Former_Member]

I do believe this law is a mess but to claim things should not be tested is just as insane. Here ( http://forums.ebay.com/db2/thread.jspa?threadID=520073605&tstart=0&mod=1231706629718 ) is an interesting thread on showing what failed for XRF testing that someone did. I think this shows, that *yes* testing does need to be done - but falling on the little guy isn't the best way for that to happen.

[Former_Member]

Hmmmm ... I got to wondering if law may be like the seat belt laws passed in the early 80s. At first it was only for children, then later passed for all passengers. (For the record, I wore a seat belt consistent before those laws were passed.)

What happens when the demand is made for product testing regardless of product applying to all consumers, adult and children? Could it happen?

[Former_Member]

I like matsutake's idea too! I stood in line last year to have my son's Thomas trains tested for lead with my stomach in knots thinking of all of the times the younger one would put them in his mouth while playing. In his mouth while I was sitting right there next to him...With that being said, the idea of waiting to see what products make kids sick, concerns me.
There has to be a better way than this law, but there do need to be specific regulations at some level.

[Former_Member]

momosbows I am right there with you in regards to the Thomas trains! My oldest had one in his possession at all times. I was a nervous wreck when the lead in those came out. He actually had 4 that were recalled.

[Former_Member]

NKPbeads says:
Hmmmm ... I got to wondering if law may be like the seat belt laws passed in the early 80s. At first it was only for children, then later passed for all passengers. (For the record, I wore a seat belt consistent before those laws were passed.)

What happens when the demand is made for product testing regardless of product applying to all consumers, adult and children? Could it happen?


If we are truly interested in protecting children from lead, then any law should extend to all products. Children - especially children at the age when they explore by putting items in their mouths - do not discriminate about what they chew on. They are just as likely to to chew on their teenage brother's items as they are their own. I've seen kids chewing on their mom's car keys, cabinet handles, cell phones, purses, seat belts, their mother's shirt... you name it.

Whether it will happen - I don't know.

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

Do you test all of your items for lead? Would you feel differently if they changed the law and included all product for people of all ages? Lead can poison at any age, so why limit it. Remember, it is the completed product that requires testing, and that testing would destroy the item. How would these regulations as written affect you? What would you see as resonable in light of what you sell? I work with fabric, fabric is not harmful, but I must test it, even though it will never reach the level of harm. What is the point of this?

[Former_Member]

I would suppprt supplier testing or an audit system like Matsutake suggested. I think either would work well and not be cost prohibitive. I do think testing needs to be done - the fact that some of my buttons failed scares the crap out of me.

[Former_Member]

NKPbeads
NKPbeads says:
Hmmmm ... I got to wondering if law may be like the seat belt laws passed in the early 80s. At first it was only for children, then later passed for all passengers. (For the record, I wore a seat belt consistent before those laws were passed.)

What happens when the demand is made for product testing regardless of product applying to all consumers, adult and children? Could it happen?
---
Personally, I think it would be a very good thing for there to be minimum mandatory safety standards about the amount of toxins allowed in any consumer product.

The question, in this post, is how to balance the need for safety and regulation on the one hand and not creating barriers for small business and human-scale enterprise on the other.