Video: CPSIA threatens thrift stores and charities
posted at 5:42 pm on January 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It’s for the kids. Those four words can justify all sorts of mischief in expansion of government powers, and the new Consumer Protection Safety Improvement Act is the latest example. The government wants to tighten protection against lead and phthalates in consumer products aimed at children, especially clothing and toys. Thanks to the provisions of the CPSIA, however, anyone reselling used clothes or toys will have to perform testing on the products, including charitable thrifts and organizations that use garage sales as fund raisers:
The Los Angeles Times reported on this last week:
Barring a reprieve, regulations set to take effect next month could force thousands of clothing retailers and thrift stores to throw away trunkloads of children’s clothing.
The law, aimed at keeping lead-filled merchandise away from children, mandates that all products sold for those age 12 and younger — including clothing — be tested for lead and phthalates, which are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable. Those that haven’t been tested will be considered hazardous, regardless of whether they actually contain lead.
“They’ll all have to go to the landfill,” said Adele Meyer, executive director of the National Assn. of Resale and Thrift Shops.
The new regulations take effect Feb. 10 under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which was passed by Congress last year in response to widespread recalls of products that posed a threat to children, including toys made with lead or lead-based paint.
Hasty lawmaking leads to bad laws, and in this case hardly addressed the issue at hand, which was bad enforcement of regulations by Chinese authorities. Congress could have simply directed more extensive testing of all products imported from China, which would have (a) addressed the real issue, and (b) not placed a huge regulatory burden on American thrifts and small, independent producers. Instead, it passed a sledgehammer that threatens not just to keep poor people from buying inexpensive clothing for their children and putting independent boutique clothiers out of business, but also accelerate use of landfills for clothes that are perfectly safe to wear. It’s absurd.
Lady Logician writes:
I wonder who will save “the children” from starvation or from the elements when their parents can no longer afford food and clothing thanks to their “good intentions”.
Gee, I thought it was the nanny-state liberals who loved the poor! Pheisty also has more on this subject.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Drat. My plot to coat every donation with mercury and lead is foiled.
*fiddles with this evil mustache*
lorien1973 on January 7, 2009 at 5:47 PM
This has a lot of pretty calm and normally compliant people really pissed off. Interesting to see what will happen.
scotch amy on January 7, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Why would anyone want to be a member of government at any level? It’s like Instastupid.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Baa, baa…. stupid sheep will never get around to stopping government intervention in our lives.
BoomJunkie on January 7, 2009 at 5:49 PM
This is what happens when the liberals get control. It may be the best of intentions but the poor suffer the brunt of the cost. They will be many children who will not have adequate clothing as a result. If governemt did it’s job the bad clothes would be caught at the source not at the end of the supply chain. The consumer loses again. Tommy Jefferson and his cronies must be rolling over in their grave(s).
kanda on January 7, 2009 at 5:51 PM
That’s what we get for allowing “the one” to be voted in!
http://www.creators.com/editorial_cartoons/21/6329_image.jpg
BoomJunkie on January 7, 2009 at 5:51 PM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
upinak on January 7, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Helen Lovejoy would say, “What about the children?! Won’t somebody please think of the children!?”
keep the change on January 7, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Oh no they can’t! The EPA does not allow lead to be disposed of in landfills. What is she thinking? Perhaps someone will need to be arrested or fined for this type of crime against the environment.
singlemalt_18 on January 7, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Good luck with trying to enforce this law. It will be ignored and I doubt 99.99% of anyone knows anything about it. The government probably spent millions coming up with a stupid law like this. It will be the poor that would be effected most and I can smell lawsuits from some ambulance chasing lawyers coming out of the woodwork on this one.
izoneguy on January 7, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Liberals and the law of unintended consequences go hand in hand…… so much so one might actually think liberals were f*cking things up on purpose.
Nahhh.
jukin on January 7, 2009 at 5:59 PM
You laugh: technically, poopy diapers are considered to be hazardous waste in some communities, IIRC. You are supposed to “remove” the faeces from the diaper prior to disposal, preferably by flushing it down the toilet.
How many parents you think actually *do* that?
/shaking head
Wanderlust on January 7, 2009 at 6:00 PM
hmmm correct me if i’m wrong but how does the federal government have this authority?
thift stores are LOCAL businesses and do NOT have any interstate trade. therefore the federal gov does not have the authority to regulate their businesses.
That authority is for local governments and state governments. Someone needs to file a court case with this law. It is time we start placing boundries on the federal gov. Just the fact that no one has mentioned this yet in this thread and ED failed to mention it makes me wonder if anyone even things about checks and balances and limited consitutional government anymore.
unseen on January 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM
I thought the moonbats CARED about the environment….
Also, will the thrift stores have to pay for hazardous waste disposal for all the clothes (assumed to contain lead and/or phthalates)?
omnipotent on January 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM
This isn’t the work of Obama. President Bush signed this law.
Some of us have been railing about it for months now, and we’re happy that the rest of you are finally waking up.
angelat0763 on January 7, 2009 at 6:04 PM
What am I supposed to do now with all the clothes my kids outgrow? We give to friends and family if they need stuff, but generally the clothes go to one of several local charities. This has always been a great situation – we buy from the thrift stores on occasion (we are fortunate enough to be able to buy new), we take care of the clothes, and when outgrown, we help others in two ways (cheap clothing and the charity gets money).
What a waste if this legislation prevents this sort of thing. I mean, I just got my kids to agree to donate old toys to other kids – will we have to throw them away too?
Anna on January 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Well my wife and I did that through three babies. Mostly my wife did that but she sometimes managed to blackmail me into it. Of course then we washed and dried the diapers folded them and put them away for the next round.
Oldnuke on January 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Well I guess that my family and I will no longer be taking clothes that we no longer use and everything else we donate to charity. This is really sad. At least twice a year we go through everything and donate it. I guess now I’ll have to endure a garage sale…or do I need to test everything if I sell it from my driveway? Where does this end?
milwife88 on January 7, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Anna on January 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Let me repeat the Federal government does NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to do this. There is nothing in the consituiton to give it this authorioty. Their authority comes when the clothes and toys first enter the USA. After they enter the USA and travel across state lines, The federal government no longer has authority if the clothes and toys do not pass state lines.
unseen on January 7, 2009 at 6:11 PM
The law passed overwhelmingly in both the House (424-1) and the Senate (89 to 3) and Bush signed it. So there’s a lot of blame all around.
Notice of the Feb. 10 drop dead date was given in September, so it’s unlikely that any of the major retailers will have any problems because they received time to sell out their inventory.
jim m on January 7, 2009 at 6:12 PM
This isn’t going to set well with the religious thrift stores, GoodWill, Disabled American Vets, etc.
PappaMac on January 7, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Reminds me of the hoops we had to go through with tamper resistant food.
A minimum of tampered food, and a maximum of expense to resolve an almost non-existent problem.
Over reaction to a problem is what people do who cannot think…
right2bright on January 7, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Ah, but we live near a state border, and we donate the clothes to charities in VA, MD, and DE (through organizations we grew up with). I get why this should not be legal, but it was passed, and it’s not as if Congress cares about the Constitution anyway.
Anna on January 7, 2009 at 6:17 PM
No, these sheep leave that to people like me.
I’m really beginning to feel like the Little Red Hen.
Amendment X on January 7, 2009 at 6:17 PM
I’d be surpised if the CPSC doesn’t provide some exemption for second-hand clothes sold by thrift shops and similar places.
Unseen, yes, the federal government does have this authority. Even the Rehnquist court said that (i) Congress may regulate the use of the channels of Interstate Commerce; (ii) Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of Interstate Commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities; and (iii)
Congress’s commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to Interstate Commerce i.e., those activities that substantially affect Interstate Commerce. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause.
jim m on January 7, 2009 at 6:17 PM
We can’t build a freaking wall along our southern border, but we can take the time to force charity shops out of business.
This Piece of Crap Brought to You By the U.S. Government. How Can We Screw You Over?℠
amerpundit on January 7, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Bailouts for the Thrift Store Industry!
innominatus on January 7, 2009 at 6:20 PM
This is idiotic. I would say half of my daughters clothes have come from second hand stores or hand-me-downs. Ridiculous.
Vigilante on January 7, 2009 at 6:20 PM
IF the gob’ment really wanted to protect children from danger, THEN they would not mandate that we buy mercury bombs (aka, ‘green’ bulbs)?
madmonkphotog on January 7, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Unintended consequences, part MCCLXIX:
The CPSIA has already, or will soon, put small manufacturers of cloth diapers out of business. Many cloth diapers and related products are created by cottage industries (mothers/grandmothers operating out of their homes) who cannot afford the requisite testing ($4000 per product). Note that I’m not talking about the plain flat diapers here, but rather the pocket or all-in-one diaper products.
The alternative to cloth is, of course, disposable diapers, whose manufacturers can afford the required testing. The “green” cloth diapers will thus be displaced out of the marketplace by the landfill-stuffing, non-reusable, chemical-laced disposables.
GoHskrs on January 7, 2009 at 6:29 PM
I’ve blogged about this, too. It’s not just thrift shops. Used children’s books are at risk as well. SEcond hand book stores may have to dump their inventory of children’s books.
Small cottage businesses, crafters who make children’s toys or shoes (see Etsy for the sorts of things I’m talking about) are definitely at risk.
It’s also important to understand that this is NOT about protecting the rights of thrift shops or crafters to sell toys and shoes with phthalates or lead and make our kids sick- all these items are presumed to be lead or phthalate based unless proven otherwise. It’s not that these items HAVE lead or phthalates- it’s that they have not been *certified* lead-free.
Sellers are required to get third party testing of each item and each individual component (rivets, buttons, beads, which must have different testing for each color, and possibly for each batch).
This can run to thousands of dollars for just a few items, effectively putting small businesses and people who sell things from their home via Etsy out of business. If you sell five dollar bids you cannot afford to get separate testing for the ties, the lining, the embroidery thread, the main material, for each small artisan batch of bibs you make.
Get this- currently? According to one crafter I read on the Etsy forum, almost all the testing facilities are in China.
According to the Commission (which consists of two people), these rules will also be applied retroactively to inventory crafters and others already have in stock.
It’s a horrible mess.
DeputyHeadmistress on January 7, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Er, that’s five dollar BIBS.
and here’s the link which says the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is making the rules and deciding that they apply retroactively, is made up of TWO PEOPLE.
DeputyHeadmistress on January 7, 2009 at 6:35 PM
The thrift store industry is rife with what I would call corruption. That being said, this is a blow that will certainly affect many of our neediest families. Thrift stores are great for those of modest means or in a pinch. They used to be cool for quirky oddball dressers like myself until ebay hounds became so prevalent.
I stopped giving directly to thrift stores some time ago. I give directly to people. I don’t need the fake write-off receipt. Same thing with library donations. You walk in hand them a pile of books, they hand you a blank receipt. SHADY!!!
I give directly to needy people. They’re not hard to spot. And if you can’t find them, let a few people know what you’re doing and you will soon have requests.
I have a pile of very nice clothes — leather jacket, stylish hoodies, button-down shirts and essentially new kids’ shoes — waiting for deilvery right now.
If nothing else, it gives me an excuse to drive around LA and look at pretty women.
The Race Card on January 7, 2009 at 6:38 PM
See, the thing about buying from small dealers (Etsy and the like) bothers me too. I’ve known about this for a while, but I feel like there is little I can do about it.
I like to crochet baby items, and donate them… I wonder if doing with organic/certified yarn would make a difference. This whole thing is craptastic.
Anna on January 7, 2009 at 6:38 PM
I agree with you about certain thrift stores being shady. I simply don’t write off these things as tax deductions – I feel as if that’s scamming the system or something.
Anna on January 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM
ALLCON,
Put all the stuff in saran wrap,place in large clear plastic re cycle container and take it to the instant recycling service.(IRS)
They will call fema and lettuce head,in turn will alert SWAT and they the bomb squad who will then blow your charitable recycled gift to hell and save you a trip to Goodwill.I mean it is for the kids,safety.
Expect plain cars and guys in sunglasses to visit for a few days so stock up on coffee and donuts.Pick any federal office you like as they are pub lice servants and will be glad to help you dispose of hazardous clothing.Gift wrap the stuff and leave it in the bed of the pick up at the mall, ought to be gone in a flash.
Get creative and maybe the reg will get changed,hell ship it to congress they are always lookin’ for a handout.
Always,always include a polite thank you notes praising the help big government is to you.
SMILE
Col.John Wm. Reed on January 7, 2009 at 6:45 PM
Anna, just today the two person commission voted to exempt wool, cotton, and silk. I suspect if the Etsyians and their friends hadn’t been making a fuss this exemption wouldn’t have happened.
I suspect nobody in Congress read the bill, ever shops at a thrift shop, every buys from small cottage businesses, or even has a clue that their bill will require the massive destruction and banning of children’s books printed before August of ‘09.
People need to keep letting them know what idiots they’ve been. Nicely, of course.
DeputyHeadmistress on January 7, 2009 at 6:50 PM
“We can’t build a freaking wall along our southern border, but we can take the time to force charity shops out of business.”
Send all the used clothing to Mexico – that will show them!
izoneguy on January 7, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Seems to me a tripple whammy. Mommy got for her little girl two years ago and donated to Goodwill because the little girl has outgrown the dress. Now two years ago the manufacturer passed the product safety testing by randomly testing items from the production run; the item was safe for sale and use by a child. This year however because Goodwill cannot possible perform the full range of product safety tests on one dress it is not presumed to be hazardous — despite the fact that it was not originally hazardous.
And, on top of that it because it is presumed hazardous doesn’t it probably can’t simply go the the landfill, it will have to go to a hazardous materials landfill.
More brilliant lawmaking. Ayn Rand was right.
johnsteele on January 7, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Is this the “regulation” the leftys have been screaming for?
Screw em – ignore the law.
izoneguy on January 7, 2009 at 6:54 PM
I’m surprised bamboo didn’t make the list. Thank goodness someone is fighting this… I simply cannot fathom that two people have this sort of insane power.
I have a serious urge to slam my head into my desk right now.
Anna on January 7, 2009 at 6:54 PM
jim m on January 7, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Which a thift store does not do.
unseen on January 7, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Wouldn’t it be easier to make sure the stuff is tested BEFORE it get to the states? That way you would know for a fact that if it was in a second hand store it was fine?
Oh, wait. We can’t do that cause China OWNS us!
Bicyea on January 7, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Stop donating to Goodwill et al, you are only causing them a problem. Instead, pack your castoff goods in a USPO Flat Rate Box and send it to your congresscritter with a note explaining why.
Morons.
johnsteele on January 7, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Oh cripes! Just make sure Gore doesn’t hear about this or before you know it he’ll be selling “lead and phthalates” offsets to charities.
in_awe on January 7, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Do NOT do this, I’m fairly certain it is a violation of federal law.
johnsteele on January 7, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Best thing to do is put everything on the curb with a alert listed under FREE on craigslist.com
Bicyea on January 7, 2009 at 6:58 PM
*headdeskslam* : )
Anna on January 7, 2009 at 6:59 PM
The Interstate Commerce Clause is probably the single most misused and abused portion of our law. Once Congress discovered the “flexibility” of the clause the explosive growth of the federal government was unstoppable.
johnsteele on January 7, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Check out this site:
http://www.freecycle.org
Local citizens making their cast-offs available to other local citizens at no cost. Our local chapter fills up my in box every week with items ranging from childrens’s clothing to TV’s to computers to gardening tools. Anything that someone has in their home can be found at one time or other being re-cycled through this site.
in_awe on January 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM
~(_:(]) DOH!
The Race Card on January 7, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Don’t forget collectibles: vintage train sets, your mother’s dolls, action figures from the 80s, out-of-print books…anything that could be ruled to be a children’s item is now illegal to sell or donate.
Anything from those nice European toymakers like Selecta and Haba has to be certified.
Anything that goes into a school has to be certified. Your taxes will go up as schools attempt to resupply with certified products, and some things will just not be available anymore (science kits that can’t be tested because of parts from unidentifiable lots, microscope lightbulbs that can’t be manufactured without lead…).
The Etsians and others are working like mad to get this fixed, but they’re not exactly organized and they don’t have much by way of connections.
So if you feel like chewing out any Congresscreeps or talking to the local news or anything, it would be appreciated.
(I haven’t checked yet but it wouldn’t surprise me if today’s wool-cotton-silk exemption is for undyed materials only. And that still leaves the polyester thread you sew it with, and the buttons you add….)
Nevicata on January 7, 2009 at 7:16 PM
No more garage sales without testing every product for traces of danger!
jgapinoy on January 7, 2009 at 7:18 PM
All of the church organizations will have to dump their contributions…
Headlines next year:
Church giving down from previous years…Christians are not as charitable as they used to be, they have donated less to charities then ever before.
right2bright on January 7, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Don’t remind liberals about the effects of poor people not finding clothes for their children at thrift stores. It will kill the buzz they’ve got going from their latest attempt at do-goodery.
Mallard T. Drake on January 7, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Not to mention the extra burden loaded onto the producers of “Antiques Roadshow.” Are they going to have to test all the antiques before they are assessed and profiled on TV. Or just keep the children 50 ft. away from the toy trains.
Mallard T. Drake on January 7, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Quick give the the names of 5 children harmed by lead and phthalates from a toy?
I’m still waiting.
tmitsss on January 7, 2009 at 8:08 PM
I think I see the real problem here. You get a tax deduction for giving old clothes away?! You let the government in – they never leave!
OldEnglish on January 7, 2009 at 8:27 PM
This also means the price of new toys and clothing for kids will go up even higher because they will pass the cost of testing on to the consumer. So now, people who couldn’t afford new clothes to begin with will have to pay even more for the new clothes they can’t afford but are going to be forced to buy. Not to mention that they will be doing it during what is supposed to be the worst recession in 70 years. Brilliant!!!
Maybe this is part of the far left’s plan for population control. If the kids are inadequately dressed and malnourished because their parents can’t afford decent food, then they will start to die off and reduce the burden on Gaia or Mother Earth or whatever. It’s all clear to me now.
ExcessivelyDiverted on January 7, 2009 at 8:58 PM
My understanding is that this “law” was tacked on as a rider to another bill. It was the other bill that got the overwhelming support, this flew in under the radar.
AZfederalist on January 7, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Hey didn’t bill clinton donate his underwear and take a tax write off for it?
I donate to a thrift store which hires people who don’t have the skills to work at another business and they give them English lessons, pay them a decent wage, train them to be cashiers, managers, how to display clothes and work with the public, and then help them find other employment when trained. I also love finding bargains – great books, beautiful frames, and lovely little dresses for grandchildren.
I would be very sad if this business was to close because of the stupid government and their stupid regulations.
Bambi on January 7, 2009 at 9:16 PM
From reading in other forums, you can’t give away the items either. If it is intended for children, it must either be tested or destroyed.
AZfederalist on January 7, 2009 at 9:16 PM
I already got a message throught my Moms Club on this. There’s no way they will implement this law. Outraged hormonal moms can be scary.
On a side note, I find it interesting that a lot of the moms I know that were screaming about why the government wasn’t doing anything about the poisonous toys & clothes are now the ones freaking out about this. They apparently aren’t familiar with the law of unintended consequences.
Security Mom on January 7, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Actually this will have the biggest effect on national organizations such as the Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries, St. Vincent de Paul Society, etc. We are talking about thousands of stores and millions of donations. Many of these groups have regions that do cross state lines, so the Feds could use that as even further excuse to harrass them. I volunteer at one and already we’re sitting here looking at those people coming in to buy and wondering what we can do. People who simply cannot afford to buy retail, some are families but many are elderly.
Deanna on January 7, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Why do laws like this pass? Because we are asleep at the wheel. How many actually have any idea what their elected representative are doing? What may be an interseting exercise is to look at how your representative voted on this issue. Then hold them accountable. Write letters if you are for or against their position. Let them know how it will affect your vote next time around. Let them know you are watching every move hey make and will hold them accountable. Try to get them to introduce legislation to either fix this law or get it stricken from the books. If you don’t someday some innocent little grandma will go to prison for violating this thing. Making do gooder grandmothers criminals is all this accomplishes. Imagine that.
kanda on January 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM
I wonder how this will affect ebay?? I’ll have to look and see if they fall under it.
So, while we can’t resell a thomas the tank engine toy, we are being forced to buy those idiotic mercury filled lightbulbs.. you know, the ones that require a hazmat team to clean up when they break?
No wonder they say republics only last 300 years or so.
bullseye on January 8, 2009 at 8:15 AM
Too bad there is exactly zero evidence that phthalates in childrens toys pose any threat.
As usual, Washington is using a sledgehammer to attack a problem that only exists in the minds of a few extremists.
Another Alar scare.
MarkTheGreat on January 8, 2009 at 8:25 AM
I thought it was paved with lawyers? or was it liberals?
MarkTheGreat on January 8, 2009 at 8:26 AM
It’s paved with conservatives and libertarians so lawyers and liberals have something to walk on.
kanda on January 8, 2009 at 8:46 AM
Yet another ‘law’ I’ll have to ignore.
LimeyGeek on January 8, 2009 at 8:49 AM
And who’s going to protect the children from having to remember the spelling of “phthalates”?
rbj on January 8, 2009 at 9:13 AM
I know a young man who makes toy wooden swords. He sells them at craft fairs and such. This puts him out of business because it would cost him $20,000 to have the five components tested. Hopefully this asshattery gets straightened out.
darcee on January 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Here are the dunce lists:
The House
And Senate
darcee on January 8, 2009 at 10:12 AM
The government hates kids and poor people, this law makes it clear.
Maxx on January 8, 2009 at 11:29 AM
‘Sorry kid, you’ll just have to freeze to death – theres a one in a thousand chance that you could possibly be damaged in some way 40 years from now by wearing that donated coat.’
Vashta.Nerada on January 8, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Does anyone note the irony here, that laws were not followed, therefore leading to potentially damaging products, and the solution is a law?
Vashta.Nerada on January 8, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Freecycle will also not really be an option, as any children’s product which doesn’t have a certificate and label as per the new law (which means anything produced before February of this year), will, BY LAW, be designated Hazardous.
So then how are they to be disposed of?
DeputyHeadmistress on January 8, 2009 at 12:04 PM
This is Bobby Rush’s law?
What a freaking idiot. I wonder how the folks who live in his district will like not being able to buy cheap clothes at the Goodwill feel about this?
Elizabetty on January 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM
And how much will this law that forces perfectly good children’s clothing and toys to be tossed into the garbage cost the taxpayers?
Oh, by the way, the above does not include “travel expenses,” the commission has yet another section providing even more taxpayer money to themselves for their travel allowances. As you can see, while the kids have no cloths to wear because of their stupid laws, the commission has been quite generous to itself, at your expense.
Maxx on January 8, 2009 at 1:14 PM
On the bright side, this could be the end of Chinese products…. uh…which means Wal-Mart’s shelves will be empty.
Ernest on January 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Update:
“On Wednesday, a group of consumer interest organizations urged the Consumer Product Safety Commission to work with secondhand stores to present common-sense solutions for the shops while ensuring compliance with the intent of the new legislation. The CPSC is expected to provide guidance to the resale industry as soon as Thursday.
In the meantime, CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese implied that the agency will not be focused on shutting down secondhand stores whose goods may not comply with new standards. Stores will have to make a business decision that they are confident in the products they’re selling, she said.
“The agency is fully committed to carrying out the law,” said Ms. Vallese. “But in terms of using the resources of the agency in the most useful way, the agency will be trying to focus on those products of greatest risk and the largest exposure” such as metal jewelry, small parts, recalled products, and other known hazards that pose the greatest risk to children.
See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137430044662809.html
jim m on January 8, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Comment pages: