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

[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.