# can't resell kids items?



## Kiddoson (Nov 19, 2001)

I got this email, is it serious? if so I can't describe how this sucks for us

--------------------------------------------------------------------
After Feb 2009 it will be illegal to consign, resell, and sell items (clothes, toys..ANYTHING) manufactured prior to that date for children under 12 (unless you pay for 3rd party hazardous substance testing). This includes yardsales, e-bay, consignment shops, craft shows, handmade childrens items, etc. The new CPSIA will effect anyone that sells ANY products that can be considered for children. Not just toys and jewelry, but CLOTHING, ROOM DECOR, SCHOOL SUPPLIES, EDUCATIONAL AIDS, ART WORK, ART SUPPLIES, PILLOWS, HAIR BOWS so on & etc. Even HAND-ME-DOWNS as resales or vintage items will be subject to the testing.

To read the whole "brief", 67 pages long, requires some basic law education but you can get the gist of it in the CPSIA's FAQ section: http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/...ml#educational

One, it's great that the legislators are trying to keep childrens products safe from lead and other hazardous substances. BUT, be aware that you will be unable to resell your children's items after February unless you pay to have them tested first. You will be unable to purchase anything except for NEW children's products after Feb 2009, which will be a challenge for many who are in financial crunches. Violators will be subject to fines and jail time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## katiesk (Nov 6, 2007)

What?


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Who sent you this article?

Are you sure it's not from an organization that wants to derail this legislation?

I'm reading the the FAQ now, I see nothing about yard sales and consignments, just the tightening of regulation and lowering the amount of lead and other hazards that are allowable.

I'd be suspicious of an email that sounds alarmist, and then kicks you to a general part of a very large FAQ that says nothing about what the email's being alarmist about (namely, the big bad government is going to fine you big time for having a yard sale).

I could see this getting dicey for consignment store OWNERS if they're required to certify everything in their store as safe (vs. having a sign or contract people sign saying that the buyers/consigners are responsible for vetting any recalls, ect. vs. the business owner being liable for that).


----------



## guestmama9910 (Dec 12, 2008)

*Kiddoson*, If you look around the web, the consensus is that this will do exactly what it says it will, effectively putting all the small craft business straight out of business. Even larger companies such as Maple Landmark toys in Vermont will probably be unable to meet these standards. The only way for independents to compete will likely be testing co-ops, but even then such laws will unfairly favor large batches from big business manufacturing. Frankly, it is an absurdly fascist law and I'm not even certain it had wholly honorable intentions from the outset. For folks like us who refuse to bow to big business, we'll be thinking outside the box and buying either non toy items like cookware for our daughter, or making our own. We have just officially shot our industry in the foot. Again.
--
AnnaArcturus


----------



## Tilia (Nov 18, 2006)

How can they regulate garage sales????

I think it is just for sales, not resale.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AnnaArcturus* 
*Kiddoson*, If you look around the web, the consensus is that this will do exactly what it says it will, effectively putting all the small craft business straight out of business. Even larger companies such as Maple Landmark toys in Vermont will probably be unable to meet these standards. The only way for independents to compete will likely be testing co-ops, but even then such laws will unfairly favor large batches from big business manufacturing. Frankly, it is an absurdly fascist law and I'm not even certain it had wholly honorable intentions from the outset. For folks like us who refuse to bow to big business, we'll be thinking outside the box and buying either non toy items like cookware for our daughter, or making our own. We have just officially shot our industry in the foot. Again.
--
AnnaArcturus

The OP's question was about resale, not about small craft businesses.


----------



## momof2kiddos (Dec 24, 2008)

I am really upset by this. It is going to really affect the pocket book if I can't go to my local re-sale store to get my kids clothes I can't afford to go out and buy "New" all the time. I love being able to go to my local thrift store to get the high end clothes for cheap. I really feel bad for WAHM like myself and other that will soon not be able to sell our products that we make for kids.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

I don't see all that stuff ending up in a landfill. It will get "passed around" somehow, even if it's not outright resold.

And will ebay just up and die? I don't think so. This sounds like a hoax.


----------



## 2cutiekitties (Dec 3, 2006)

I expect some lawsuits are coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MadameXCupcake (Dec 14, 2007)

Yes it is real.
There has been a thread on this in the activism forum for a few weeks.

The whole thing is














:


----------



## bmcneal (Nov 12, 2006)

I, personally, take those types of e-mails with a grain of salt. If it was true, wouldn't there be news about it somewhere other than an e-mail that not everyone is getting? I agree with a pp, even if the stuff *isn't* sold, people will still have access to it, either freecycle, or "classifieds" or something else. I wouldn't worry too much about it.


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

There's a thread about this in the activism forum.

Yes, it is serious. They're being rather vague about it in the email, but the law is worded so broadly, that under current interpretation that would be what happens. Because the law is worded that it will be retroactive.

This also effects cloth diapers and pretty much everything for kids under 12.

I urge you all to look into this matter more before blowing it off and not believing it. Because a lot of changes are coming, and unless the interpretations and exceptions are made, they're not all going to be good. While I firmly believe the intention of this law was good, it just got out of hand in the way it was worded. It's very impractical. But it's happening.


----------



## ~savah~ (Aug 24, 2008)

This is real and there have been lots of threads on it in different forums on Mothering, including a large one in activism. There are links in that thread to many newspapers, including the Washington Post and The LA Times.


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tilia* 
How can they regulate garage sales????

I think it is just for sales, not resale.

Resale is included so far, because the law is retroactive. It's possible that they'll make an exception, but it's not guaranteed that they will.


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bmcneal* 
If it was true, wouldn't there be news about it somewhere other than an e-mail that not everyone is getting?

There is. See below.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sweetdaughter* 
This is real and there have been lots of threads on it in different forums on Mothering, including a large one in activism. There are links in that thread to many newspapers, including the Washington Post and The LA Times.


----------



## stickywicket67 (Jan 23, 2007)

where did you get the info about consign/resale products?

if it applies to any and all previously manufactured products wouldn't the shelves of every single children's store in America be empty at this point? i think a local new station somewhere would have reported it if this were the case.

my friend owns a kids resale shop and hasn't said anything about it. i'm sure their trade group would be all over this legislation if they were part of it.

from my understanding it applies to all _newly manufactured_ products including handmade in America small business type products.

check out the thread in Activism for links. it's a dumb law regardless.


----------



## NettleTea (Aug 16, 2007)

Um, I don't know what to say ._.


----------



## NettleTea (Aug 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stickywicket67* 
including handmade in America small business type products.

And thus signals the end of some of the few places I trust buying toys and clothing items for my son.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

Subbing.


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stickywicket67* 
where did you get the info about consign/resale products?

if it applies to any and all previously manufactured products wouldn't the shelves of every single children's store in America be empty at this point? i think a local new station somewhere would have reported it if this were the case.

my friend owns a kids resale shop and hasn't said anything about it. i'm sure their trade group would be all over this legislation if they were part of it.

from my understanding it applies to all _newly manufactured_ products including handmade in America small business type products.

check out the thread in Activism for links. it's a dumb law regardless.

That would be true if it weren't for the wording of the act. The need for testing for lead levels is currently *retroactive*. The word retroactive is key.

Yes, I firmly believe the intention of the law was targeted at newly manufactured items, but that's not the way it's worded. And it has to be interpreted and enforced based on it's wording.

It may or may not get an exemption.

From what I've heard a lot of resell shops have no clue this is going on.

And yes, some local news stations around the country have covered this. There was an article about it in Mothering, if I recall correctly. The thing is, so many people are concentrating on the good aspects they're not realizing the huge effects it'll have because of how it's worded.


----------



## stickywicket67 (Jan 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Grylliade* 
And thus signals the end of some of the few places I trust buying toys and clothing items for my son.

exactly! i have a lot of friends that make and sell children's products. there is a huge forum on Etsy about it. it's devastating to their businesses.

it's a really stupid misguided law brought about by people over reacting to lead paint. yes. i get it. lead paint should not be on children's toys. lead is a toxic substance. but the backlash in this country from the cases of lead paint on a handful of toys is absolutely ridiculous. people want the government to legislate common sense and personal accountability. it's infuriating.

i run a small family owned shop. i had a customer ask me if a Christmas ornament had lead in it. a fragile glass Christmas ornament. not intended for children.







shouldn't she have been worried about a child cutting themselves on the thing before she worried about a child eating it?
so frustratingly stupid.

the lead paint/toy brouhaha is so minor compared to what our children are supposed to have injected into their bodies at every well baby visit. (eyes rolling to the very back of my head.) sorry i had to go there.


----------



## SAHDS (Mar 28, 2008)

No more thrift shops??? No more Value Village???


----------



## stickywicket67 (Jan 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grniys* 
That would be true if it weren't for the wording of the act. The need for testing for lead levels is currently *retroactive*. The word retroactive is key.

Yes, I firmly believe the intention of the law was targeted at newly manufactured items, but that's not the way it's worded. And it has to be interpreted and enforced based on it's wording.

It may or may not get an exemption.

From what I've heard a lot of resell shops have no clue this is going on.

And yes, some local news stations around the country have covered this. There was an article about it in Mothering, if I recall correctly. The thing is, so many people are concentrating on the good aspects they're not realizing the huge effects it'll have because of how it's worded.

i just went on the NARTS website there is not a word about it on there and they post recall stuff on there all the time. i don't know what to think. i doubt there will be federal investigators closing down thrift and consignment shops across America.

the law is not being as widely reported as i would expect for as devastating to small business as it will be.


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Here's an article about it. And it quotes NARTS.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/most...4&provider=top


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

This law needs to exclude resale and only apply to newly manufactured items.

And, IMO, there should be an exception for businesses that produce less than a certain amount of products per year. This is the real problem with the proposed law- that it's an unfair burdon on small businesses that have never used toxic substances in the first place.

I'm still wondering if there will be loopholes allowing small toy manufacturers to market their items as "collectibles" rather than "toys" and continue to sell their products.


----------



## bmcneal (Nov 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stickywicket67* 
*i just went on the NARTS website there is not a word about it on there and they post recall stuff on there all the time.* i don't know what to think. i doubt there will be federal investigators closing down thrift and consignment shops across America.

the law is not being as widely reported as i would expect for as devastating to small business as it will be.

I am on the mailing list of one of the recall/warning lists, and I haven't heard anything about it. Nothing on any of the news channels here, nothing in the newspapers, NOTHING until I saw this thread. I am just suprised that there is very little being reported about it. (I think I x-posted with the person who initially gave the link to the activism thread.)


----------



## stickywicket67 (Jan 23, 2007)

Quote:

Here's an article about it. And it quotes NARTS.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/most...4&provider=top
thanks! for the NARTS link. i did some more research...

that article was from a year ago.

here's a follow up shortly after.
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/colu...96355&catid=79

still a scary dumb law.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/Home

http://nationalbankruptcyday.com/

http://www.playthings.com/article/CA6620437.html
and there is facebook group.

(I haven't heard specifically about resell, this is just general info).


----------



## LeighB (Jan 17, 2008)

I can't get any of the links to work right now because I'm using the internet on my phone. But am I understanding that I will no longer be allowed to buy used clothing for my child? How on earth are families going to afford basic items for their children?


----------



## stickywicket67 (Jan 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bmcneal* 
I am on the mailing list of one of the recall/warning lists, and I haven't heard anything about it. Nothing on any of the news channels here, nothing in the newspapers, NOTHING until I saw this thread. I am just suprised that there is very little being reported about it. (I think I x-posted with the person who initially gave the link to the activism thread.)

i feel the same.
i think we need to be concerned about the law and be pro-active as much as we can to help keep our small handmade businesses going in this country.
i don't think it helps to have misinformation going on.


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stickywicket67* 
thanks! for the NARTS link. i did some more research...

that article was from a year ago.

here's a follow up shortly after.
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/colu...96355&catid=79

still a scary dumb law.


Quote:

Julie Vallese is the Director of Public Affairs and she said, "If it is a one-of-a-kind product, those stores [consignment, thrift] will not need to test."

So, consignment shops are in the clear. That would not be the case for larger thrift stores that actually buy more than one-of-a-kind.

So... used, one of a kind bibs or custom made wooden ducks are ok. Used, largely manufactured children's clothes aren't.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

:


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

2 of the 3 thrift stores in my town stopped selling toys after the recalls last year. They said they don't have the staff to be sure they aren't selling recalled items.


----------



## stickywicket67 (Jan 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grniys* 
So... used, one of a kind bibs or custom made wooden ducks are ok. Used, largely manufactured children's clothes aren't.


what i think it means is that consignment stores and thrift stores get single items from consignors/donators. in other words- "one of a kind".

often big thrift stores buy new items in job lots from manufacturers or in the case of a consignment shop some will supplement their used inventory with new socks, tights and barrettes. those are not considered "one of a kind" items as they are bought in bulk quantities and they are placed on the floor and sold as new.

in the article Goodwill says that those products make up only 10% of their kids merch. i took that to mean that they aren't concerned how the law effects the majority of the stuff on their racks -largely manufactured used clothing and toys.

very confusing indeed.


----------



## NettleTea (Aug 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeighB* 
But am I understanding that I will no longer be allowed to buy used clothing for my child? How on earth are families going to afford basic items for their children?









:

I love buying used clothes for my son. There are so many reasons why buying used is better than buying new:

1. Better selection
2. Better for the environment (recycling, etc)
3. Better for health (most new clothes have pesticides in the cotton and/or other chemicals in the fabric until they have been washed at least 3-4 times. However, this wouldn't apply to every used clothing item since some are still in fairly new condition)
4. Better priced
5. It's more fun









There are probably other reasons that could be added to that list.


----------



## mommy68 (Mar 13, 2006)

I've heard many people in my homeschool group talking about this in the last couple of months.







A lot of people make and sell items and I feel for them if it affects them.

I didn't think this applied to clothing? I thought it only applied to items that are made that could have lead in them? I'm confused.


----------



## ryansma (Sep 6, 2006)

:


----------



## ElliesMomma (Sep 21, 2006)

i saw this ad on craigslist free section:
We are in the process of closing a kids resale shop due to a recent law passed by congress. The law requires all children's toys and clothing for sale must be tested for lead and phthalates and we just can't afford to do that, so we will just close shop and move on.

There is a large amount of gently used clothing and toys for all ages, as well as some furniture items.

Everything left in the store will be disposed as per tax reasons. However, if you are a bonded and insured contractor or mover, we will allow you to "dispose" of these items for us, as long as it is of no cost or liability to us. You will be required to move and clean the space.

Please ONLY RESPOND if you meet these requirements. The garbage company will be called sometime mid-month, and we will just be filling our dumpsters each collection until then, so sooner the better. I will only respond to some.

...............................

so, i guess it's true.
















going in the dumpster? all across america?

to me, it sounds like the american *people* are being punished for the lead put into children's products by greedy *corporations*.

i'm beyond words.


----------



## ~savah~ (Aug 24, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy68* 
I've heard many people in my homeschool group talking about this in the last couple of months.







A lot of people make and sell items and I feel for them if it affects them.

I didn't think this applied to clothing? I thought it only applied to items that are made that could have lead in them? I'm confused.

The law applies to *anything*intended to be used by children under the age of 12. This includes toys, clothing, diapers, bedding etc. It is not just about the lead, manufacturers must also test for phalates. And on a side note The Childrens Place had a recall a couple of months back because some of their clothing had lead paint the design, so it is not unheard of that clothing does have lead paint in it.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ElliesMomma* 
i saw this ad on craigslist free section:
We are in the process of closing a kids resale shop due to a recent law passed by congress. The law requires all children's toys and clothing for sale must be tested for lead and phthalates and we just can't afford to do that, so we will just close shop and move on.

There is a large amount of gently used clothing and toys for all ages, as well as some furniture items.

Everything left in the store will be disposed as per tax reasons. However, if you are a bonded and insured contractor or mover, we will allow you to "dispose" of these items for us, as long as it is of no cost or liability to us. You will be required to move and clean the space.

Please ONLY RESPOND if you meet these requirements. The garbage company will be called sometime mid-month, and we will just be filling our dumpsters each collection until then, so sooner the better. I will only respond to some.

...............................

so, i guess it's true.
















going in the dumpster? all across america?

to me, it sounds like the american *people* are being punished for the lead put into children's products by greedy *corporations*.

i'm beyond words.


that is so sad. And, as far as Goodwill only worried about 10% of their merch, they are one of the stores locally that stopped selling used toys. The only childrens items ours carries are clothes and new stuff from Target overstock.

Did you see my post above about European toymakers pulling out of the American market? I'm so sad because the companies that I don't trust (big ones making stuff in China) are the ones who can afford to pay for this testing. The places that I trust to make my toys (grandmas at art markets, small american/european toy companies, Etsy) are the ones who are going to go out of business. I think we are going to be stuck with Toys R Us.


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stickywicket67* 
what i think it means is that consignment stores and thrift stores get single items from consignors/donators. in other words- "one of a kind".

often big thrift stores buy new items in job lots from manufacturers or in the case of a consignment shop some will supplement their used inventory with new socks, tights and barrettes. those are not considered "one of a kind" items as they are bought in bulk quantities and they are placed on the floor and sold as new.

in the article Goodwill says that those products make up only 10% of their kids merch. i took that to mean that they aren't concerned how the law effects the majority of the stuff on their racks -largely manufactured used clothing and toys.

very confusing indeed.

I took the wording of the article to mean that only 10% of their merchandise is one of a kind used, and therefore allowed. So that would mean the additional 90% would have to be tested or dumped.

One thing I think everyone can agree on is this law is sooooo confusing. It's like they took a sledgehammer to a fly with this and didn't realize what it would do.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

Ifyou read the thread in Activism, lot of us wrote to our representatives and the response we got it that they all support this. Its easy to say we should keep lead out of kids items, but the results of this law will be terrrible.


----------



## ElliesMomma (Sep 21, 2006)

oh, but won't this be a great way to get americans spending money again?







: seriously, if everyone has to go out and buy new again, that's like an incredible boon for the children's clothes, toys, etc. industry. disgusting!!


----------



## stickywicket67 (Jan 23, 2007)

i'm not getting the "retroactive" aspect of this thing that is supposedly going to shut down thrift and consignment stores.

wouldn't that mean that stores like Marshalls, Ross, TJ Maxx, Gap Outlet, every single outlet store would have to dump their inventory that was made before 2/09? or pay thousands of dollars to have it tested? essentially destroying their profit margins yet not a word about it in major newspapers or news channels?

it just doesn't make sense.


----------



## angelpie545 (Feb 23, 2005)

Well, I just looked at my local Craig'slist and there isn't anything in it about not allowing ads for used children's items any longer. There is an entire kids-baby section open too. I'm quite sure that places like Value Village, Marshalls and that like will continue to stay open, and if the law affects them, there will be HUGE lawsuits, with discrimination to the poor among one of the top accusations.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

Here's mainstream media. Its LA Times and it says thrift stores will have to dump their stock of children's items:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,2083247.story

Here's NPR, though a lot of articles just deal with the postives of the law. Check out the comments at the bottom. The discussion is happening, but the media isn't picking up on it much:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=98643877

And here is just a list of press coverage:
http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/press-coverage


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I would think "retroactive" would apply to things that have been manufactured but not yet sold. I can't imagine it applying to garage sales - not enforceable at all - though maybe it could to resale shops.

The law is a problem. I've read about it several places. It's like the organic laws that do nothing to help with providing organic food for people or protecting organic farmers, but instead seem to make it impossible for small farmers to be able to label their organic goods "organic." Big businesses can handle regulations that small companies can't.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

Except that small farms can still sell their products, just not labeled as organics. These toys will be illegal to sell! It seems unbelievable!


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Flor* 
Except that small farms can still sell their products, just not labeled as organics. These toys will be illegal to sell! It seems unbelievable!

Yes it is worse, although the lack of an organic label will possibly put some of those farms out of business, so it isn't as simple as just selling as non-organic. Some of them exist simply because people want their *organic* goods.


----------



## NettleTea (Aug 16, 2007)




----------



## NettleTea (Aug 16, 2007)

I just had a thought. Why can't this law apply only to imported toys and clothes? That would fix about 90-95% of the problem.


----------



## ryansma (Sep 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Grylliade* 
I just had a thought. Why can't this law apply only to imported toys and clothes? That would fix about 90-95% of the problem.


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Grylliade* 
I just had a thought. Why can't this law apply only to imported toys and clothes? That would fix about 90-95% of the problem.

Because that would make China unhappy and our government wants to bend over backwards to keep them happy.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Grylliade* 
I just had a thought. Why can't this law apply only to imported toys and clothes? That would fix about 90-95% of the problem.

That is the suggestion of the Handmade Toy Alliance. Toys made in the US and Europe haven't been (a big) part of the problem.


----------



## NettleTea (Aug 16, 2007)

Do I dare ask how this new "law" might affect the trading post?


----------



## jeca (Sep 21, 2002)

Wow, just wow. That really makes me nervous. I buy %70 of my kids stuff second hand. Three kids new stuff all the time. I would have to start buying them just cheap new crap rather than quaility second hand.


----------



## firsttimemama (Nov 4, 2005)

Is there any suggested action for those of us that don't agree with this? I guess I need to find the activism thread..


----------



## bender (Mar 23, 2007)

I found a pdf talking about preparing a company for the changes, and it indicated that only imported items were subject to testing. I was written in August 08, so maybe info has changed?


----------



## Cinder (Feb 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
I don't see all that stuff ending up in a landfill. It will get "passed around" somehow, even if it's not outright resold.

And will ebay just up and die? I don't think so. This sounds like a hoax.

It's definitely not a hoax, but I really think they came out a couple weeks ago to say that resale clothing will not be affected.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/colu...96355&catid=79


----------



## NettleTea (Aug 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cinder* 
It's definitely not a hoax, but I really think they came out a couple weeks ago to say that resale clothing will not be affected.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/colu...96355&catid=79

Well, that's good news.

How nice of the government to decide for us what we may and may not do in our lives. Right down to the clothes and toys that we buy.









From the article:

Quote:

It literally took an act of Congress to make retailers sell safer products for children.
I think they have that a little backwards. The problem is the companies that don't _manufacture_ "safer" products. Of course, the retail stores do make a choice when they order in the newest plastic crap instead of safe, natural toys. However, that is not the root of this problem.


----------



## 2cutiekitties (Dec 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grniys* 
Because that would make China unhappy and our government wants to bend over backwards to keep them happy.

Yes, also want to add Mexico to that list.

"If it is a one-of-a-kind product, those stores [consignment, thrift] will not need to test."

So, consignment shops are in the clear. That would not be the case for larger thrift stores that actually buy more than one-of-a-kind."

That is good news for ebay.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2cutiekitties* 
Yes, also want to add Mexico to that list.

"If it is a one-of-a-kind product, those stores [consignment, thrift] will not need to test."

So, consignment shops are in the clear. That would not be the case for larger thrift stores that actually buy more than one-of-a-kind."

That is good news for ebay.

I dunno, I just read this news article on my (old) local mom's board:

New Lead Law may Sink some children's Stores


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife* 
I dunno, I just read this news article on my (old) local mom's board:

New Lead Law may Sink some children's Stores

Thanks for sharing that link.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

:


----------



## mytwogirls (Jan 3, 2008)

Can I ask a dumb question. There is a shop near my town that sells gently used kids clothing items (it is not Goodwill) so will they be out of business? I get 90 percent of my girls' clothing from there. The clothes are next to new and name brand too. Oh my gosh I think I am having an anxiety attack!


----------



## Mama2Rio (Oct 25, 2008)

ugh! i always but used books! i wonder how this is going to effect my local store!


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mytwogirls* 
Can I ask a dumb question. There is a shop near my town that sells gently used kids clothing items (it is not Goodwill) so will they be out of business? I get 90 percent of my girls' clothing from there. The clothes are next to new and name brand too. Oh my gosh I think I am having an anxiety attack!

Not a dumb question.

Unless the law is changed and used clothes are exempted then yes, they will have to go out of business unless they're willing to pay to have each and every single item they sell tested. The fines for disobeying this law are incredibly expensive.


----------



## PGTlatte (Mar 7, 2004)

I just called our local for-profit resale where I buy ALL of our kids' clothes and this is real. Their corporate office is trying to get it clarified by their legislators.

They have already stopped buying. If they don't hear something positive in the next couple days they may be selling off all of their inventory. If nothing changes by the 17 of January they will be planning on closing all of their stores nationwide.

I will be calling and emailing my legislators.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

So, I'm not very up on how I'd go about protesting this legislation, but I'd like to. Can anybody point me in the right direction -- specifically, websites I can go to, with activist information?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## fruitfulmomma (Jun 8, 2002)

Please watch this...(pt. 1 0f 3)






Also, as for the larger stores, they have known about this law for awhile. Wal-Mart specifically is only stocking compliant stuff, so don't expect a big dumping from them. It is all the rest of the businesses that have only found out in the last couple of months and/or have been trying to figure out how to comply that have tons of non-compliant stuff that will get dumped.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitfulmomma* 
Wal-Mart specifically is only stocking compliant stuff, so don't expect a big dumping from them.

If they are only stocking compliant stuff, makes me wonder about some of the China recall stuff that they took off their shelves not too long ago.


----------



## fruitfulmomma (Jun 8, 2002)

"If they are only stocking compliant stuff, makes me wonder about some of the China recall stuff that they took off their shelves not too long ago."

Well, that is what they are claiming anyway... But I will say I believe this law has a loophole in it which will continue to allow these things to go on. The third party testing part of it, which goes into effect in August, has given *some* manufacturers the right to have third-party testing facilities on site *and* many of the approved third-party testers are in China. We are also all aware that these manufacturers were breaking laws already in place before this particular law. Hello??? Why should they comply now?!







:


----------



## PGTlatte (Mar 7, 2004)

I have been reading the info and the pdfs at the CSPC website.

I have not found one that specifically mentions clothing, garments, or textiles. The language I have found is vague. The only language I have seen that looks like it applies to clothing (besides the specific document about shoes) are the "broad range of children's products" referred to in one document, "paint", and "small parts" referred to in a timetable.

I am wondering if perhaps clothing that does not have any small parts (ie buttons, snaps, zippers, decorations) or paint might be exempt ?

Of course if there are no resale stores left to buy it at, that won't help me.


----------



## CAndMe (Feb 6, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Flor* 
Here's mainstream media. Its LA Times and it says thrift stores will have to dump their stock of children's items:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,2083247.story

Holy crap!!!!!!!! I work for a kids resale franchise, and here I am reading all of these posts thinking that it must not apply to us because the owner of my store hasn't said anything. Then I open an article and the president of the freaking franchise says we will have to close.







:

Also, we do not buy more than one of a kind. How it works is, say your daughter just went from size 3 to size 4. You bring in all of the size 3's and we buy them from you (outright, not on consignment). So either the president of the company misunderstood or we're mistaken about it not affecting resale and consignment.


----------



## PGTlatte (Mar 7, 2004)

Don't know if it will help but I just emailed my congressperson. Here is where you can find yours:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Here is what I wrote:

Dear Congressman xxxx,

I am writing to ask you to please work to change the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) to NOT be applied retroactively to children's clothing.

Existing children's clothing should be exempt from the CPSIA. There are both environmental and economic reasons for this.

There is going to be a large environmental impact from resale stores having to landfill their entire inventory of children's clothing. And since parents are not going to be able to donate or resell their children's existing clothing, it will also be landfilled.

Charitable thrift stores will lose the income they currently make from selling donated children's clothing. In addition to losing that income, they will have to bear the expense of disposing of children's garments left on their property which they can no longer sell.

Families who currently depend on being able to purchase their children's clothing used are going to have to bear the expense of purchasing brand new clothing. This will put a financial burden on many of our citizens who can least afford it. As a result, many of their children may not have clothing that fits well, is appropriate for the season, or is in good repair.

A great many for-profit resale stores will have to close, because they make most of their money from children's clothing, and if they can't sell it, they can't keep their doors open. Their employees will lose their jobs. Many charitable resale stores may have to close as well and lose their main source of income. And the communities of the for-profit resale stores will lose that sales tax revenue.

The risk of a child being injured by lead in their clothing is extremely small. If this regulation is imposed on existing children's clothing, it will do FAR MORE HARM THAN GOOD. In these tough economic times, this law will be increasing the cost of clothing for lower income families, causing local resale businesses to close, reducing local tax revenue, putting people out of work, and taking a large portion of income away from charities while increasing their operating expenses.

It would make much more sense to publish warnings about older children's clothing with metal charms and not enforce the CPSIA retroactively on existing clothing.

I thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,


----------



## newmainer (Dec 30, 2003)

I deeply, hope that this does not go through. But if it does, i think it is imperative that we think creatively and out of the box. For example, every year my friend does a clothing swap with her girlfriends- we a (i'm talking about adults here, but easily applied to children). Our Waldorf school sets up a tent every spring and fall for the same purposes for children's clothing and shoes.

I would hope that everyone will not just throw up their hands and think that just because the government is cracking down, we all need to bow our heads and comply. There are ways around the system, and perhaps we will all be better off and pass things around rather than selling them!

i don't know, just a few tip of the iceberg thoughts.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

At the bottom of the LA Times article, there's a button to post the article on your Facebook page.


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitfulmomma* 
Please watch this...(pt. 1 0f 3)






Also, as for the larger stores, they have known about this law for awhile. Wal-Mart specifically is only stocking compliant stuff, so don't expect a big dumping from them. It is all the rest of the businesses that have only found out in the last couple of months and/or have been trying to figure out how to comply that have tons of non-compliant stuff that will get dumped.

I've noticed a LOT more clearances on kids stuff than usual. At really, really low prices.

I'm assuming that is the way for them to get rid of non-compliant stuff in advance.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

:


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Grylliade* 
I just had a thought. Why can't this law apply only to imported toys and clothes? That would fix about 90-95% of the problem.

Because unfortunately, there are other raw materials (like paint) that may not be intended for use by children, but used to make children's products. The only way to guarantee that an item is free of harmful chemicals is to test the complete end product (or make ALL products lead free), because the raw materials can have orginated from anywhere. Am I making sense? I'm exhausted. If not I'll clarify tomorrow.

But honestly, this law as it currently stand is so incredibly problematic


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stickywicket67* 
i run a small family owned shop. i had a customer ask me if a Christmas ornament had lead in it. a fragile glass Christmas ornament. not intended for children.







shouldn't she have been worried about a child cutting themselves on the thing before she worried about a child eating it?
so frustratingly stupid.

the lead paint/toy brouhaha is so minor compared to what our children are supposed to have injected into their bodies at every well baby visit. (eyes rolling to the very back of my head.) sorry i had to go there.

The problem is though, that there are plenty of things not INTENDED for children that can still leave lead in their environment (holidays just passed- fake trees and Christmas lights anyone?). A child hanging a glass ornament can end up with lead dust on their hands, and yes, a child can be old enough to help hang a fragile ornament, and young enough to do a half assed job of hand washing after they are done helping, but before putting their hands in their mouth, thus the parent's concern. And some parents don't even KNOW the kids are at risk from Christmas ornaments or lights, or whatever. Thus the problem.

And I am right with you on the other issue, but that's for another thread.

I honestly don't know what the solution is. Because the individual components of items kids come in contact with can be too highly contaminated, thus making the end product contaminated. The only good way is to test the end product.

My family is affected by this too, because we buy almost exclusively second hand, and my son is a crafter.


----------



## beansricerevolt (Jun 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmainer* 
I deeply, hope that this does not go through. But if it does, i think it is imperative that we think creatively and out of the box. For example, every year my friend does a clothing swap with her girlfriends- we a (i'm talking about adults here, but easily applied to children). Our Waldorf school sets up a tent every spring and fall for the same purposes for children's clothing and shoes.

I would hope that everyone will not just throw up their hands and think that just because the government is cracking down, we all need to bow our heads and comply. There are ways around the system, and perhaps we will all be better off and pass things around rather than selling them!

i don't know, just a few tip of the iceberg thoughts.


ITA.

We have to get creative. There is no possible way we (my family) could survive without second hand clothing. Literally 100% of our clothing are second hand or handmade. I just can't even fathom the thought of buying new clothes. We would literally go hungry


----------



## ElliesMomma (Sep 21, 2006)

yet it's almost like no matter what the specific wording is or whether it might be amended slightly and some things exempted or whatever, the damage is done because the perception is already out there and beginning to grow. people are seeing and hearing evidence of resale stores closing. some good usable stuff is going to dumpsters already. it's an environmental crime as well, all this waste in america.

the big losers are as usual the public, especially economically challenged people, but all of us who shop resale. as quick as kids outgrow stuff, what is the point of buying new? and i do totally hold these companies responsible for producing contaminated products to begin with. what but greed would lead any company to put compromising materials in *children's* products anyway?

this law is rewarding the companies who poisoned people in the first place, by sending more business their way.

yes, an underground network will survive for some people and i would always encourage freecycling or giving away hand me downs, as i do and will continue to do. but i'm thinking twice about donating anything to charities now, after reading about this, for fear that it will just be tossed away instead of passed along.

so the chilling effect has already begun. if they make changes at this late hour, will it even be very effective, or is the damage already done?


----------



## dearmama22 (Oct 20, 2008)

This is just ridiculous. I can't believe it. I'm outraged.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ElliesMomma* 

this law is rewarding the companies who poisoned people in the first place, by sending more business their way.


exactly.








:


----------



## sharon.gmc (Nov 17, 2008)

Is that for REAL??!!


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sharon.gmc* 
Is that for REAL??!!

Yes.


----------



## PGTlatte (Mar 7, 2004)

Another letter to my senator and US rep, this time about books:

Dear Congressman xxx,

I am writing again with additional concerns regarding the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.

At this time it appears that the lead testing regulations will apply retroactively to used books. PLEASE work to have this changed !!!!!!!

Our five year old son has many wonderful books he purchased for fifty cents from the used book sale shelf at our local library. He looks forward to our weekly library visits because he gets to search for books of his own to buy. Our budget would not allow us to purchase him this many new books at retail prices. He has many wonderful books he has picked out himself specifically because we can purchase them for such a low cost. Losing this opportunity would be very upsetting to him and a great loss in the variety of books he would be able to enjoy.

Furthermore, we are homeschooling. I am financially counting on being able to purchase a great many books and curriculum materials at used prices. If it becomes illegal to sell used books and materials because they were manufactured before the law was in effect, this will dramatically increase our family's cost to educate our children.

Also, there are many wonderful books that are real treasures that now are out of print. Used is the only way to get these books, ever. If it becomes illegal to sell them, and most of them end up being disposed of because they can't be sold, they will become next to impossible to get, and a great many children will miss out on them. This would be a true tragedy, especially considering that the risk of a child getting lead poisoning from these books is *next to nothing*. If our government goes through with prohibiting the resale of these books, frankly I will consider it a crime of the United States government against our nation's children. There is simply no excuse for banning the sale of out of print children's books just because they do not meet some new standard for safety testing that didn't exist when they were printed, effectively extinguishing those books for our country's children. I do not want to live under a government that would do so.
The implications are truly frightening. This is a matter about which I truly feel that a fundamental personal liberty is at stake.

Thank you again for your consideration. I do hope that you will stand up for our freedom to choose what our children will read.

Sincerely,

xxx


----------



## caitryn (Aug 18, 2005)

I was just coming on here to see if anyone had mentioned this yet. I just found out about it tonight when my dad sent me this link:

http://www.duckduckgooseconsignment.com/CPSIAlaw.html

It also contains the link to the .pdf for the 62-page law:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpsia.pdf

This was introduced in January 2008, passed in August 2008, and will go into effect February 10, 2009.

It even throws in ATV's and pools/spas at the end of the document. I believe I also saw something about more regulations on items small enough to be deemed choking hazards.

I can't find everything my dad and I were discussing earlier, but it seemed (and someone can tell me if we read this wrong) that not only are used children's items not going to be allowed for resale because of the lack of lead-free labels, but the manufacturers and stores were not allowed to stockpile any of these items for something like 6 months prior to the law taking effect. (That's a good explanation for why many stores weren't getting any restock around here.) ---- I just read an article that says the ban on stockpiling and selling the stockpile after Feb. 10 has been revoked?

If it weren't for used items, I wouldn't have been able to bring DS home from the hospital because I couldn't and still can't afford a brand new car seat. This is also going to affect collectors like my dad who collects old GI Joes and my sister who likes older train sets.

I have seen consignment and thrift stores mentioned. We could add antique stores to the list of those affected, too.

Here's an excerpt from the article in relation to cribs:

_
(c) CRIBS.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-It shall be a violation of section 19(a)(1)
of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(1))
for any person to which this subsection applies to manufacture,
sell, contract to sell or resell, lease, sublet, offer, provide for
use, or otherwise place in the stream of commerce a crib that
is not in compliance with a standard promulgated under subsection
(b).
(2) PERSONS TO WHICH SUBSECTION APPLIES.-This subsection
applies to any person that-
(A) manufactures, distributes in commerce, or contracts
to sell cribs;
(B) based on the person's occupation, holds itself out
as having knowledge or skill peculiar to cribs, including
child care facilities and family child care homes;
(C) is in the business of contracting to sell or resell,
lease, sublet, or otherwise place cribs in the stream of
commerce; or
(D) owns or operates a place of public accommodation
affecting commerce (as defined in section 4 of the Federal
Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2203)
applied without regard to the phrase ''not owned by the
Federal Government'').
(3) CRIB DEFINED.-In this subsection, the term ''crib''
includes-
(A) new and used cribs;
(B) full-sized or nonfull-sized cribs; and
(C) portable cribs and crib-pens._

This is the only time I could find mention of the word "resell," but there could be numerous synonyms for this for all I know. Now that I've calmed down from having discovered this, I'm trying to logically go through it, and I'm hoping it's not as bad as it may appear. Still, I'm not a lawyer, so there's plenty I could miss.


----------



## mytwogirls (Jan 3, 2008)

I am f****** speechless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!







:


----------



## mama1803 (Mar 4, 2008)

Petition to the CPSC

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/e...SIA/index.html

To find your local represtatives

http://capwiz.com/americanapparel/dbq/officials/

To ask a question of the CPSC on Legislation

http://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/newleg.aspx


----------



## soccermama (Jul 2, 2008)

This is crazy!! I love to consign, love to shop at consignment shops, etc., It saves our family a ton of money!! Hell, I was even thinking about opening my OWN store in a couple of years. This has certainly put a damper on a lot of things now.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Some updates - they are listening...

*Regulators rethink rules on testing children's clothing and toys for lead*

The Consumer Product Safety Commission gives a preliminary OK to exempt some items from testing after complaints of hardship to thrift stores and sellers of handmade toys.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,6917858.story

not far enough, but a start.

You can find more details on http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html

It seems that the CPSC has its hands tied because Congress specifically used the terms "banned hazardous substance" which invokes another law in how such materials are to be treated.


----------



## Miasmamma (Sep 20, 2006)

"No final rules will be approved until after Feb. 10, when the testing rules go into effect.

That means retailers and manufacturers who sell untested children's merchandise would technically be in violation of the new law starting Feb. 10. Whether federal regulators will enforce the rules -- which might entail inspections at thousands of secondhand stores and toy shops across the country -- is another question.

"The CPSC is an agency with limited resources and tremendous responsibility to protect the safety of families," said Scott Wolfson, a CPSC spokesman. "Our focus will be on those areas we can have the biggest impact and address the most dangerous products."

So does anyone else read this as "We cannot police every little resale shop or toy manufacturer, so we will go after the big guys in order to make the biggest splash." ????

That's kinda what I read.


----------



## caitryn (Aug 18, 2005)

Out to curiosity, do you think it would affect ALL crafts? My mom was making homemade soaps. Kids need to be clean, too. Would she have to have testing done to prove that the lye didn't contain lead?


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

Just wondering-- If new items after Feb. 10 have to be labeled, then items purchased after that date can go to thrift stores and be resold, correct? I think thrift stores may be ok since they have other items, but stores that specialize in children's items will not have any stock for months or years if they have to dump old items then wait for new labeled items to be donated. That would put them out of business. If someone wanted to open a consignment shop for children's items in a year, they'd be ok, right?

Someone mentioned that they've been seeing a lot of children's items on sale, but I haven't at all. Shouldn't every store be trying to get rid of all unlabeled children items before Feb. 10?


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Another thing - I'm not going to trust that tag, depending on where I see it, anyway. Is anyone really going to trust that a tag saying something has been tested means it actually has and that it absolutely couldn't have lead in it? If I buy something from a WAHM, particularly associated with a place like MDC, I'm going to have a higher level of trust that there is no lead than I would have in a tagged item from Walmart. Wouldn't most people?


----------



## beansricerevolt (Jun 29, 2005)

Im still dumbfounded.

One plus side that I could see from this, it may give us (general public) all a reason to form more of a community around us. I myself, sew, knit, upcycle children goods & sell on etsy & the like. This could be a great opportunity for me to start a barter system with my neighbors. I could sew/knit or give hand me downs to their children in exchange for one of their handicrafts. Heck, Id be willing to sew up an outfit for a babe if someone would be willing to clean my oven


----------



## caitryn (Aug 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
Another thing - I'm not going to trust that tag, depending on where I see it, anyway. Is anyone really going to trust that a tag saying something has been tested means it actually has and that it absolutely couldn't have lead in it? If I buy something from a WAHM, particularly associated with a place like MDC, I'm going to have a higher level of trust that there is no lead than I would have in a tagged item from Walmart. Wouldn't most people?

My mom brought up that point earlier. After all, when the health inspector takes a look at a fast food place, all you have to do is slip the inspector a free meal and maybe some money, and the store will get a good score. (This actually happened at a place that my dad worked years ago.) This kind of stuff happens all the time in a variety of businesses. How long before the big businesses start buying off the inspectors in relation to this new law so that they can put no-lead labels on lead-containing products?


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Wow. I just became aware of this.


----------



## Tilia (Nov 18, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
Another thing - I'm not going to trust that tag, depending on where I see it, anyway. Is anyone really going to trust that a tag saying something has been tested means it actually has and that it absolutely couldn't have lead in it? If I buy something from a WAHM, particularly associated with a place like MDC, I'm going to have a higher level of trust that there is no lead than I would have in a tagged item from Walmart. Wouldn't most people?

Yes this. I would rather buy from Selecta or Maple Landmark untagged, than buy a wooden toy from Target that is tagged lead-free.

In other words, it won't affect my shopping preference. I will still trust the same companies I trust now, and won't buy from the big plastic companies.


----------



## Tilia (Nov 18, 2006)

Someone else mentioned in the thread in activism:

It makes me sick that you can buy food that hasn't been tested for things, or you can buy organic. You still have the choice which one you want to ingest.

But with toys, the kind that aren't tested are illegal! Why not give the consumer the choice? Make it clear on the label, our company does not test for lead.

Meanwhile, food with pesticides, rat poop, etc is legal.

Baffles my mind.


----------



## Tilia (Nov 18, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caitryn* 
My mom brought up that point earlier. After all, when the health inspector takes a look at a fast food place, all you have to do is slip the inspector a free meal and maybe some money, and the store will get a good score. (This actually happened at a place that my dad worked years ago.) This kind of stuff happens all the time in a variety of businesses. How long before the big businesses start buying off the inspectors in relation to this new law so that they can put no-lead labels on lead-containing products?

That is a really good point too. I wouldn't trust it either.


----------



## beccaroo (Sep 25, 2003)

I'm not sure if this is on the thread yet...

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html

Sounds like reselling clothes should be just fine. I'd think books too.

Resellers aren't required test for lead. But they're not supposed to sell products that don't meet the new lead limits or have been recalled. It lists cribs, play yards, kid's jewelry, and painted toys as items to be careful with.


----------



## PGTlatte (Mar 7, 2004)

HUUUUUUUUUGE RELIEF !!!!!!

Now they need to exempt handcrafted goods from testing.


----------



## beansricerevolt (Jun 29, 2005)

Thats good news!


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

:







:

they _are_ listening!!!


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

Thank God! I am so relieved, really, I was getting worried about everyone who just canNOT afford endless new clothes, and the environmental impact, etc.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

In the middle of this article there is a link where you can sign up to give comments about this law. It says there will soon be a 30 day comment period:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,6917858.story


----------



## LittleYellow (Jul 22, 2004)

From the new clarification:

Quote:

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.

The new safety law does not require resellers to test children's products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. *However, resellers cannot sell children's products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.*
This still sounds like it could be very challenging for Resellers to be in-line with the law. You don't have to test, but you can't sell items above the limit. How can you KNOW if older items are over or under the limit with out testing them. Seems like it is a bit of a catch-22 for toys and equipment.


----------



## Tilia (Nov 18, 2006)

To me, the part that says this, "and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content," means avoid toys or clothes with paint on them. To me, that means logos, painted jeans snaps, and wooden or plastic toys that are painted.


----------



## RJJmom (Jan 9, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *beccaroo* 
I'm not sure if this is on the thread yet...

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html

Sounds like reselling clothes should be just fine. I'd think books too.

Resellers aren't required test for lead. But they're not supposed to sell products that don't meet the new lead limits or have been recalled. It lists cribs, play yards, kid's jewelry, and painted toys as items to be careful with.

I'd like to put my two (untested for lead content) cents in. As Beccaroo posted today's update from the CPSC, they have just announced that resellers of used products do not have to test for lead. Or do they?

From the CPSC report link she posted:

"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."

Then the very next paragraph says

"The new safety law does not require resellers to test children's products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. *However, resellers cannot sell children's products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.*" (I added the bold)

So in essence, the CPSC has made it optional for resellers to test. However, the reseller can face felony charges if caught selling even ONE article of clothing or a toy that exceeds the limit of lead. Imagine the opportunity for frivolous lawsuits this is going to bring.

I'm glad that this issue is finally getting some attention. I can not understand why the press has not jumped on this. There has been a huge effort by those in the children's industry to help educate people about this crazy law and the effect it is going to have on so many people.

To give you some idea of how this is going to affect the market, I'll tell you how it is affecting me. I am the co-owner and designer of a small knitwear line. Our line is Made in Peru of 100% cotton. We do use buttons, elastic and an occasional zipper in a jacket. Even though my products are inherently safe, my line is subject to the same testing as Mattel and FisherPrice toys.

Someone said they didn't understand the retroactive nature of the law. What this means is that on Feb 10th, only items that have a "Certificate of Conformity" which states that the item contains less than 600 ppm of lead can be sold. Any items that have not been tested, are to be considered hazardous materials and it will be a felony to sell them.

What this means for my company is that currently our Fall collections are in around 175 stores across the country. This merchandise was shipped to these stores BEFORE THIS LAW WAS EVEN WRITTEN. On Feb 10th, it will be illegal for a store to sell any of this merchandise that they have owned for several months, unless we (as the manufacturer) can prove that we have tested each piece for lead content and have a "General Certificate of Conformity" (GCC). In order for us to have a GCC, we have to pay for testing a product that we have already sold at a price that was determined long before we knew we would have to pay for testing. The least expensive method currently, is for us to rent an XRF gun and do the testing ourselves. Inexpensive equals $3,000. In August, we will be required to use a CPSC-approved third-party testing service. The cost for this is $150 for each time they "push the button". One garment does not equal one "push". Each component of each garment needs to be tested. We have a jacket that will currently take seven scans to test. That is $1,050 to test ONE jacket, in one colorway. The current testing that they are demanding is ridiculously redundant. For our new fall collection that we take to market in the next few weeks, the cost of third party testing will be around $105,000. This far exceeds our projected profits for the season. (This is not a very lucrative field in case anyone is curious!) For 100% cotton clothing that isn't embellished with metal or rhinestones or other bling, this testing is unnecessary. Unless this law is completely overhauled, small niche clothing lines like mine and many others will be forced out of business at the hands of our own government.

As I was typing this, I received a call from my state representative's office. The aide I spoke with said he's been on the phone with the CPSC for 3 days. It was only through congressional pressure that they made the change for the consignment and resell industry. He said that this law was originally intended to target dangerous imports from China and it was never meant to affect small businesses like mine. At least he gets it.

One interesting thing I just confirmed with him is how many people sit on the CPSC. Currently, that number is 2. TWO!!!!!

Sorry for the long rambling post. Thank you to all of you who called your representatives.

Rebecca


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RJJmom* 

So in essence, the CPSC has made it optional for resellers to test. However, the reseller can face felony charges if caught selling even ONE article of clothing or a toy that exceeds the limit of lead. Imagine the opportunity for frivolous lawsuits this is going to bring.

Our local thriftstores stopped selling toys last year after the toy recalls. They won't accept donations of them or they just toss them into the trash. I'm sure they will just stop selling kids clothing as well.

Thanks for posting your story, RJJmom.


----------



## CAndMe (Feb 6, 2008)

NEWS!!! I asked my boss today and she said that yes, if it is not amended that we would have to close. However, at about 5o'clock she got an email from the president of the franchise saying that CPSC just amended the bill *today* so that it does not apply to *resale* items. So consignment, thrift stores, garage sales, ebay, and craigslist are now in the clear. She showed me the CPSC link when I was there but I didn't write down the URL so I can't give you hard proof just yet but I'm just psyched I won't be losing my job next month.









My boss said that if it hadn't been amended, we would have had to send each item to a lab where, for instance, a shirt with multicolored flowers and a few buttons that we would sell for 3.99 would have to have each individual color and button tested at about $100 for each color/button by a process that would destroy the shirt anyway. So yes, we would have had to close. Or sell that shirt for $600.00.


----------



## PGTlatte (Mar 7, 2004)

beccaroo, thank you so much for posting the link to the update so quickly today. I needed that !!!!!

For anyone who missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html

This takes the requirement for testing away from anyone reselling used products but does not take away their potential liability for accidentally selling something that exceeds the new lead limits. Still, progress.

They have not yet addressed the issue of making this law into something that small companies and handcrafters can stay in business with.

There is an Etsy blog that has some suggested action steps, in addition to continuing to put pressure on our US Senators and Representatives:

http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.ph...5987456&page=1


----------



## psychethemuse (May 13, 2008)

What a relief! I've been following the news of the CPSIA through various websites (including nationalbankruptcyday.com) and so it's good to know that the CSPC is actually listening to concerns. Hopefully they will consider the National Association of Manufacturers' plan and change this law so that it protects small businesses as well as children.


----------



## Miss 1928 (Nov 12, 2007)

Wow! I had no idea this was going on. Just read the whole thread, what a roller-coaster.

The thought came that this legislation was written by those who obviously don't ever buy used clothing, and thus had no idea of the *huge* impact of this new law. Yes, we all want to keep our children safe, but a blanket regulation like that is very exaggerated.

It is good news that second hand clothing stores that cater to children's items won't be forced into bankruptcy, but I really hope that businesses like Rebecca's (post # 112) can find a way to survive this.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Miss 1928* 
The thought came that this legislation was written by those who obviously don't ever buy used clothing, and thus had no idea of the *huge* impact of this new law. .

No kidding!


----------



## PGTlatte (Mar 7, 2004)

Regarding the other problem with the CPSIA, the effect on small businesses, I just sent my own plan off to some folks in Washington. I am putting it here as well and anyone who agrees with it is free to use it, or use parts of it and change it up to insert your own ideas. Please remove the part about being an engineer with manufacturing experience unless it applies to you !

Dear xxx,

I am a citizen who is in favor of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. However I have some grave concerns about the specific points of the third party testing requirements and the affect they are going to have on small and household domestic businesses.

The way this act is currently written will require each business that makes a children's product to pay for third party testing of every part and non-exempt component of that product in order to sell it. For clothing, each separate style, size, and color of an item is considered a separate product. When you consider that each separate part of each style, size, and color of each product has to be individually tested by a third party lab, and the cost for each test, the financial burden this will place on small and family domestic businesses is enormous. It will not be financially feasible for them to continue in business, and they will close. Meanwhile, large corporations that mass produce lower quality items overseas using foreign labor will be able to absorb the cost of the testing requirements and stay in business.

I do not believe it is necessary for our government to drive our nation's small and family businesses out of the children's market in order to ensure safe products for our children. As an engineer with manufacturing experience, I propose an alternative approach.

For children's goods produced in the United States in small quantities, do not put the expensive burden of third party testing on the business that makes the final product. Instead, allow the business to provide, for each product they produce, a sworn affidavit of all materials and specific components contained in the product, and for each component of the product that is not exempt from the lead and phthalate testing requirement, a certificate of lead and phthalate testing provided by the manufacturer of those component parts.

This would dramatically decrease the cost of compliance for small and family businesses, while still ensuring the safety of the components and parts that are of concern. With this plan, our American small businesses and family businesses can remain in our marketplace and thrive. The burden of testing is placed on those manufacturers who mass produce the questionable components, and they can afford it, and our nation's small and family businesses will not be punished for the previous actions of those companies.

I hope you will give this alternative serious consideration and work to make the CPSIA a law that ensures safe products for children AND allows the American Dream to continue for those who produce products for children.

Sincerely,

xxx


----------



## baby-makes-3 (May 13, 2006)

I can't read everything here, but has anyone mentioned trading sites, like kizoodle.com? It's based on a point system instead of $. I was on it and it worked great until the point value got out of hand.

The concept is good though if it can be monitored.


----------



## mytwogirls (Jan 3, 2008)

I JUST returned from our local gently used children's clothing store and asked the owner if this law was going to affect them and she assured me it was NOT going to affect them. She didn't have time to go into details but she even has a sign posted to alert customers about this. I was so relieved and she said she checked with "authorities" about it so she knows what she is talking about. WHEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## PGTlatte (Mar 7, 2004)

It appears the resale industry is still not entirely comfortable....scroll down to the FAQ section of this page:

http://www.narts.org/CPSIA_Info.htm


----------



## OurGift (Nov 27, 2008)

If they are so concerned about lead that they threaten small business, resale shops and crafters out of concern for children under 12 than I think that cigarettes, alcohol, pharmaceuticals and vehicles need to be made illegal ASAP - out of concern for children under 12's safety.

What's next? And of course, this rewards the baby and children goods industry. Now everyone has to buy all new. Ka-ching! What about being environmentally responsible?

I feel sorry if this goes through what it will do to the people that cannot afford to buy all new. The current wording of the law is still threatening to those who dare to sell these items. We know how litigious America is. People will be looking for items that have lead in it from these outlets just so they can sue the pants off them. You know, because no one likes to work for a dollar anymore.

Sorry for the rant - very upset about this.


----------



## Mrs. Bratton (Jan 27, 2008)

I am in the process of opening a children's resale business and I CANNOT get any information about it. I called the CPSC hotline. They couldnt tell me anything b/c they arent "trained" on this law. The people who are able to answer questions wont return my calls or emails. I just want to hear for myself that this wont affect me. Even thought common sense tells me it is ridiculous. Are they going to send law enforcement officers out to fine garage salers and resale shop owners?

I am just tired of arguing w/ people who think they know everything and think I am stupid for continuing to pursue my business.

I read the law verbatum and it is obviously targeted toward manufacturers and I have not seen any resale stores closing so I am not really worried. I just wish I could post a sign in my booth for my customers but I cant do that until I talk to someone from the authorities. I dont know what to do. I could ust cry. The CPSC compliance department is NOT going to call me back. Its been a week. How else can I find out?


----------



## Mrs. Bratton (Jan 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *llp34* 
It appears the resale industry is still not entirely comfortable....scroll down to the FAQ section of this page:

http://www.narts.org/CPSIA_Info.htm

I am still not worried. Even though resalers arent formally exempt who is going to enforce that? Especially if they know anything about the act b/c they would know that it was not intended to target resalers.

And just read the disclaimer.


----------



## Close2Me (Dec 9, 2008)

I just saw this article about this issue...looks like there may be a
bit of a reprieve?
Secondhand Stores Escape Lead Law
http://tiny.cc/kFq3H


----------



## MayBaby2007 (Feb 22, 2007)

My girlfriend got the following reply from our congressman. I hope it's okay to post it here?

Thrift stores can continue to sell things that were made before feb 2009 and they don't have to test. But if they sell something that exceeds the lead limit, they can face criminal charges?







That sounds like a lot of liability.

Quote:

Dear xxx:

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 4040, the "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008" (CPSIA) which was signed into law by President Bush.

Concerns are being raised as a result of the CPSIA mandating everything sold for children 12 and younger will have to be tested for lead (Sec. 101) and phthalates (Sec. 108), and anything not tested or failing a test cannot be sold. For second hand and thrift stores this raises concern because they would be responsible should they sell older clothes or toys not tested.

*The release below clarifies sellers of used children's products as thrift stores are NOT required to certify their products meet the new limits and standards.* *Furthermore, the new law does not require resellers to test children's products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold.* *However, resellers cannot sell children's products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content.* Resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.

I do want to make you aware of a press release just issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission in response to concerns raised by you and others.

CPSC Clarifies Requirements of New Children's Product Safety Laws Taking Effect in February
Guidance Intended for Resellers of Children's Products, Thrift and Consignment Stores

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In February 2009, new requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) take effect. Manufacturers, importers and retailers are expected to comply with the new Congressionally-mandated laws. Beginning February 10, 2009, children's products cannot be sold if they contain more than 600 parts per million (ppm) total lead. Certain children's products manufactured on or after February 10, 2009 cannot be sold if they contain more that 0.1% of certain specific phthalates or if they fail to meet new mandatory standards for toys.

Under the new law, children's products with more than 600 ppm total lead cannot lawfully be sold in the United States on or after February 10, 2009, even if they were manufactured before that date. The total lead limit drops to 300 ppm on August 14, 2009.

The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children's products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. 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.

The new safety law does not require resellers to test children's products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. However, resellers cannot sell children's products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.

When the CPSIA was signed into law on August 14, 2008, it became unlawful to sell recalled products. All resellers should check the CPSC Web site (www.cpsc.gov) for information on recalled products before taking into inventory or selling a product. The selling of recalled products also could carry civil and/or criminal penalties.

The agency intends to focus its enforcement efforts on products of greatest risk and largest exposure. While CPSC expects every company to comply fully with the new laws resellers should pay special attention to certain product categories. Among these are recalled children's products, particularly cribs and play yards; children's products that may contain lead, such as children's jewelry and painted wooden or metal toys; flimsily made toys that are easily breakable into small parts; toys that lack the required age warnings; and dolls and stuffed toys that have buttons, eyes, noses or other small parts that are not securely fastened and could present a choking hazard for young children.

The agency has underway a number of rulemaking proposals intended to provide guidance on the new lead limit requirements. Please visit the CPSC website at www.cpsc.gov for more information.

Like you, I am concerned about the potential impact that this could have on many families and thrift stores in our area. It is my intent to work towards a solution on this concern as soon as possible. I would encourage you to stay up to date on this and other issues of interest by signing up for my weekly electronic newsletter. You may do so by visiting my website at www.house.gov/shimkus.

Sincerely,

JOHN SHIMKUS

Member of Congress


----------



## fairymom (Sep 15, 2008)

I found this on my local news station's web site a link off of Craig's list in Minneapolis.It's from Kare11.

It was if you could hear a collective sigh from bargain hunters across the nation.

This afternoon, the Consumer Product Safety Commission released a clarification on a new, wide sweeping law that takes effect February 10th. It excuses second hand, thrift, and consignment stores from the stringent requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, legislation designed to protect the health of children, by keeping products with lead and Phthalates off store shelves.

The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children's products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. But as written, it also seemed to apply to resellers like ARC Value Village, which sells clothing, toys, and furniture from three thrift stores across the Metro.

The fear was that ARC would be required to test every donated item for lead and phtalates before they went on the shelves. The cost and red tape of such a process would, at the least, severely impact the income that goes towards programs for the disabled. At the worst, it could have closed the doors.

Today's interpretation of the law means 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.

However, resellers cannot sell children's products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit.

This afternoon, ARC Greater Twin Cities Spokesperson Pam Carlson called the ruling terrific news for Arc and many others. Bargain Bloggers across the country have been blasting the new law, saying it would negatively impact those with low incomes, and force second hand stores to fill the landfills with items they couldn't afford to test.


----------



## hrsmom (Jul 4, 2008)

good news for thrift and consignment! I just saw this link, same story, LA Times
article


----------



## ElliesMomma (Sep 21, 2006)

and ask if anyone knows the current status of this situation? my husband pointed out a WSJ article less than a month ago which seemed to confirm that kids toys and clothes were being dumpstered by good will and other large resellers. is it universally true? also i noticed on craigslist free site, someone posted that she is now giving away her kids toys, since good will told her the last batch she donated was crushed/destroyed.

i have to admit, i haven't been out shopping at any resale stores lately. are they still in business for kids stuff? is once upon a child still going? how about small neighborhood thrift stores?

if they *are* going out of business, how come i don't hear more about it, or am i just hopelessly out of the loop?


----------



## fairymom (Sep 15, 2008)

I've shopped once upon a child and thrift stores in the past month (getting ready for lo) and they still have kids clothes and toys! My local craig's list is stillopen and I've bought off it too. I can't tell you about goodwill as I haven't been in one or even usually shop at them. We use others in our area.


----------



## Mymble (Jan 11, 2009)

ElliesMama -- the law actually did go into effect, but the feds are not going to enforce the testing rule until next year. iirc, individual states are allowed to enforce it themselves if they want, and since they can fine people in some states people are nervous about enforcement starting to raise money. (I know on other forums there has been discussion about which states but I have no idea.) So, it's up to individual shops whether or not they want to sell -- here in NYC resale seems to have been wiped out, no charities I have found will take kid's stuff unless they are reselling in other states. (We were just able to donate a huge amount of baby things we couldn't give away by finding one of those charities that trucks the stuff around the country.)

But things might still be fine where you are, you'd have to go and check!

If you want to see what's been going on though, check out http://overlawyered.com/tag/cpsia/ where you will see Frightening But True things like libraries pulling tarps over parts of the children's section to prevent kids from checking out pre-1985 books.


----------

