Consumer Product Safety "Improvement"

[unixronin]

Walter Olson for Forbes, on the CPSIA and its "unintended" consequences.  Consider how fervently the large companies (Hasbro, target, others) and the "consumer advocate" organizations supported CPSIA, and draw your own conclusions as to how "unintended" some of these are.

Hailed almost universally on its passage last year — it passed the Senate 89 to three and the House by 424 to one, with Ron Paul the lone dissenter — CPSIA is now shaping up as a calamity for businesses and an epic failure of regulation, threatening to wipe out tens of thousands of small makers of children's items from coast to coast, and taking a particular toll on the handcrafted and creative, the small-production-run and sideline at-home business, not to mention struggling retailers.

If I were a nasty, suspicious person, I might suggest that large manufacturers and retailers have finally found a way to legally force small "artisan" producers and used-goods thrift stores out of business.

[Makers] must put a sample item from each lot of goods through testing after complete assembly, and the testing must be applied to each component.  For a given hand-knitted sweater, for example, one might have to pay not just, say, $150 for the first test, but added-on charges for each component beyond the first: a button or snap, yarn of a second color, a care label, maybe a ribbon or stitching — with each color of stitching thread having to be tested separately.

Suddenly the bill is more like $1,000 — and that's just to test the one style and size.  The same sweater in a larger size, or with a different button or clasp, would need a new round of tests — not just on the button or clasp, but on the whole garment.  The maker of a kids' telescope (with no suspected problems) was quoted a $24,000 testing estimate, on a product with only $32,000 in annual sales.

Under the CPSIA's provisions, thrift stores would not technically be required to have every donation that comes in tested.  But they would be liable if they sold an item later determined to be in violation.  So what are they to do?  They can't afford to have everything tested, and they potentially don't dare risk NOT having everything tested.

Comments

[hugh-mannity.livejournal.com]

If I were a nasty, suspicious person, I might suggest that large manufacturers and retailers have finally found a way to legally force small "artisan" producers and used-goods retailers out of business.

I guess I must be a nasty suspicious person, because that is exactly what crossed my mind when I first heard about it.

[mrakg.livejournal.com]

I know I'm a nasty, suspicious person.

I think that this will also be the death knell for shows built around the idea of a "crafter's village" like a RennFest.

[pernishus.livejournal.com]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Have you had that sky tested for pthalates?

[pernishus.livejournal.com]

I sure wouldn't want to be in the shoes of any judge or jury who told certain church knitting groups of my acquaintance that they couldn't peddle their wares -- I suspect that the death-of-a-thousand-cuts would be more pleasant than the footgear of said worthies...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Would that the US legal system were so easily shown the error of its ways; much less legislators who are firmly convinced they're doing it For The Children.

[novel-tharkun.livejournal.com]

I don't think the legislators believe they are doing this for the children. I suspect they believe they are doing it to avoid looking like they didn't support something that industry (read: deeper pockets that usually donate to them, not against) said was for the children.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

We have a number of small wooden-toy craft shops in Maine. They are not pleased.

[pernishus.livejournal.com]

Sue the bastards back into the tree stumps whence they came, I says...

[hrrunka]

Knee-jerk legislation; always a Bad Idea™. Doesn't seem to stop legislators leaping in to pass it, though. Our "Dangerous Dogs Act" is another example, passed in a hurry after a kid was killed by a pitbull terrier...

[pernishus.livejournal.com]

"Well, the title has a nice ring to it," purrs Pernicious the Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat, who has never yet met a dog who couldn't be improved by a "Dangerous Dogs Act" -- perhaps in the role of Mighty Manfred, diving from an Awful Height (tm) into a thimbleful of vodka?

[hrrunka]

Heh! A catchy title is all that knee-jerk legislation needs.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

i have to wonder if each and every chinese made item and knockoff will be tested?

including well, everything. electronics. cookware. food. everything.

i'm sure some of these large outfits will be allowed exceptions.

what a crock.

and as i read, they intend to ameliorate this by "loose enforcement"... i read this as 'selective enforcement". just watch.

this one should get overturned soon. except the part about "test everything from china"

#

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I am of the opinion that laws that are unenforced are more dangerous to a civil society than bad laws on the books. The way it engenders disrespect for all law is a significant problem.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Especially when combined with selective law enforcement for revenue generation, and abuses of authority such as this one (http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m2d5-Police-raid-victim-convicted-for-act-of-self-defense) - in which a citizen who shoots and kills someone breaking into his home in the middle of the night, who turns out to be a police detective taking part in an unannounced no-knock raid based on information from a burglar who burgles houses for the local police department so that they can de facto conduct warrantless searches, gets ten years in prison, while a police officer who shoots and kills an innocent citizen during a mistaken raid on the wrong house gets three weeks' administrative suspension with pay and his colleagues complain it's excessively harsh.

When the law acts in contemptible ways, citizens will hold the law in contempt.

[rosencrantz23.livejournal.com]

An unexpected side-effect of this law that NOBODY's thought about (besides librarians): Libraries may have to stop offering books to children, because the print may have lead in the ink.

And if you think any library system has enough money to pay for testing on its childrens' collection, I've got a bridge to sell you. Not to mention the fact that most lead testing will destroy the tested object.

So far, the best the ALA has gotten from CPSIA is an assurance that "they will view libraries leniently".

Between this and the proposed reversal of the NIH Information Now plan, I'm quite professionally furious at Congress right now.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

An unexpected side-effect of this law that NOBODY's thought about (besides librarians): Libraries may have to stop offering books to children, because the print may have lead in the ink.

And if you think any library system has enough money to pay for testing on its childrens' collection, I've got a bridge to sell you. Not to mention the fact that most lead testing will destroy the tested object.

Yup. A lot of libraries still haven't figured out what they're going to do about that.

"Nobody's life, liberty or property are safe while the Congress is in session."

[jilara.livejournal.com]

Yep, there are libraries thinking of just shutting down the children's book rooms, because of this. Which is just nuts.

Personally, though, I think that in the wake of this, children will just have to be forced to read books written for adults. Like "The Incredible Journey" (which I got in trouble for reading, when I was in second grade, because it was "above my grade level), or all that Golden Age science fiction I discovered in 4th grade...

They need to ban TV for kids. The set might contain lead.

And that's not all...

[jilara.livejournal.com]

Coming soon to a legislature near you, a ban on small-batch organic soaps and cosmetics! I know about this one because I've read the proposed law, and sent a protest to my congresscritters that I don't want them protecting me from possible toxic compounds by making me buy from a handful of large manufacturers who can afford the testing for "potentially harmful ingredients."

Again, it was in response to contamination from our favorite out-of-country source, but was so poorly written it will essentially force all the small companies using natural ingredients out of business.

It hasn't passed yet, but it could. Everyone write in protest!