Overlawyered has blogged extensively about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) recently. I haven’t said anything one way or the other about the CPSIA because I’ve been way too busy to read up on it. But I had to comment on the following blog post. Because it’s so short, I’ve copied it verbatim with one important exception: The original has a plethora of hyperlinks. If you want to follow them, you’ll need to visit Overlawyered.
The Upscale Baby Blog (”Reviews of Stylish Baby Gear and Inexpensive Alternatives by Real Moms”) has been running a terrific series by Susan Maphis on the law, with many posts examining the law’s real-world impact on small makers of such products as cold-weather baby capes, eco-friendly animal dolls, personalized ceramic wall plaques, made-to-order coordinated mother-daughter outfits, custom quilts, organic-fiber baby sweaters, and toy barns from reclaimed wood. It makes for sad (some of the makers have already resigned themselves to going out of business) but important reading.
Maybe there’s a compelling argument that CPSI is bad. But this isn’t it.
Does anyone really give a damn if rich mommies have a hard time buying “made-to-order coordinated mother-daughter outfits,” or “organic-fiber baby sweaters?” I sure as hell don’t. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that there are hundreds of thousands of mothers in this country struggling to buy off-the-rack outfits for their babies at such “expensive” clothiers as Wal-Mart. Them, I care about.
But I truly couldn’t care any less if a rich mommy has to spend $1,000 on a coordinated outfit that used to “only” cost $300. I don’t think I’ve ever been overly sympathetic to the leisure class and their struggle to conspicuously consume above and beyond their means. In this case, I’m absolutely hostile to their “plight.” Is your baby cold? Then buy it a god-damned coat at Target and use the savings you would have spent on a “cold-weather baby cape” to buy a second coat and donate it to someone who is actually in need.
“Personalized ceramic wall plaques?” When I was a kid, my mom made me some ceramic stuff. She cared enough to spend her time to make me things I’d like, such as a ceramic Garfield and a little whale, both of which I still have. Had my mom just spent money to buy me those things, I know I wouldn’t still have them.
“The Upscale Baby Blog?” Bile rises in my throat at the very title. Can a baby tell the difference between Calvin Klein and Osh-Kosh? No. The only people who can are the other parents who are the actual intended beneficiaries of designer baby clothes.
In a recession like this when mothers and fathers need food stamps to feed their children; when fathers are murdering their families because they can’t afford to feed them; when thousands of people are losing their jobs every day, I couldn’t care less if specialized vendors who serve the leisure class can no longer sell their useless wares.
So you have contempt for “rich people”. Do you care about people who shop at thrift stores then? Thrift stores are affected by CPSIA. The lead and phthalates bans are retroactive, which means that thrift stores will be obligated to find some way to check if each piece of their children’s merchandise is lead-free. Clothing that has no fasteners (like zippers and snaps) is probably fine, but most clothing has some kind of fastener, especially infant clothing. They can’t afford to test every item, and they can’t afford the fines if they accidentally sell something that violates CPSIA, so a lot of them are just going to go out of business.
Is that enough to move you to care about CPSIA?
If not, how about the fact that the “specialized vendors” who sell custom things to “the leisure class” are typically work-at-home moms, sometimes single moms, for whom this job is the only thing keeping them off welfare and food stamps?
How about the effects that this law has on childrens thrift and consignment stores? Many people rely on those stores to cloth their children and will no longer be able to purchase clothing at a fraction of the cost of new. Some resale stores have closed already and more will do so without changes in this law.
oooh I don’t like you.
I make pouch sling baby carriers as well as affordable cloth diapers for moms who are environmentally conscious and on a budget (cloth is cheaper in the long run after all) . There are MANY work at home moms who make things that are extremely affordable and better quality than Target or Walmart. $10 T-shirts, $10 or $15 pants. Cheaper in many cases than Walmart or Target. We are all affected. Also most things from Target or Walmart won’t hold up long enough to be handed down to another child, and are made in China. Thanks but I like to support Made in the USA or Made in Canada thanks. I would rather pay a bit more and support my local western economy than save a few bucks and buy from China.
So far, the arguments here go something like this:
This law will burden a ton of really good, hardworking people. They’ll have no choice but to shut down their business, which will hurt them and the economy as a whole.
Let’s assume that argument is correct. You know what hasn’t been addressed? Whether this law will save lives.
Can we assume that at least one child won’t die or become severely injured because of CPSIA? If so, then the question becomes how many home-based businesses is that child’s life worth?
I’ll ask the question directly to all of you: Is saving one child’s life worth putting one home- based business out of business? What about two businesses? Ten? A hundred? Where do we draw the line?
Honestly, I don’t know. But I do know that a purely economic argument doesn’t sway me against this law. Especially when you consider the burden-shifting it could have: Assume a child gets severely ill and racks up $100k worth of medical bills because of a product bought from a thrift store. Many people who shop at thrift stores do so out of financial need, and would therefore be eligible for Medicaid. Now, the taxpayers are footing the $100k bill to protect the thrift store’s profits. Hmm, that doesn’t sound good to me.
Here’s a great compromise in my opinion: Have the taxpayers foot the bill for the tests for any business that can’t afford to do so on its own. I don’t mind paying extra taxes to protect children from dangerous products.
I guarantee you that the conservatives stirring the pot over this law won’t find that solution to be acceptable. Why? Because they’re opposed to regulation in any form, but especially when it comes at a cost to taxpayers.
Does anyone here really think that the millionaire conservatives writing polemics against this law actually give a damn whether a poor person can buy a used toy? I don’t. What I do think is that they’re using this to try and push their free-market-is-God philosophy.
I saw I got a decent spike of traffic because Walter Olson described me as an aspiring trial lawyer with a chip on my shoulder. He’s right – I do have a chip on my shoulder. Only it’s not against the stay at home moms who make handcrafted products, or the parents who buy them. It’s against people who think it’s OK for children to die in order to protect profits. It’s against people who think that the free market can be trusted to make sure products are safe. It’s against people who believe in “the divine right of the shareholders.”
If you really want me to oppose this law, you need to show me that it won’t save lives – not that it will save lives at great cost. Call me old-fashioned, but I just don’t believe profits are more important than people.
Then I assume that you are in favor of banning all pets from childrens homes because some dogs have killed their owner’s children. I assume that you are also in favor of banning all knives and scissors from homes because children have been killed with them. I assume that you are also in favor of banning all cars because children have been killed by them. There are lots more avenues to save lives than by making affordable children’s clothing unavailable for many.
I have yet to see anything remotely conclusive that lead from an article of child’s clothing has ever caused a child harm. So show me where forcing these requirements on clothing will prevent death to even one child. Yet what harm will come to a child whose parents cannot afford to buy a coat or a pair of shoes? A lot, my friend.
Connie, I haven’t read any studies about lead in children’s clothing or toys, so I can’t answer that question for you. I started this article off by stating that there may be good arguments against the law, but the rise in cost of “coordinated mother-daughter outfits” wasn’t one. And I stand by that.
I’m the last person in the world who wants poor children not to have clothing. If it were up to me, the government would provide clothing and food for those who need it. If it were up to me, no parent would ever have to buy their child secondhand clothes. I’m not quite a bleeding heart… but I don’t get angry if I’m called one.
Like I said, a lot of wealthy conservatives are using not-wealthy people to defeat a law they’re opposed to on purely ideological grounds. I assume you agree that the FDA needs to regulate baby food manufacturers, right? Well a lot of people opposed to this law don’t. They think that the government has no business interfering with business at all.
Were there negative repercussions when the government banned flammable baby clothes? I don’t know as that was before my time…
Are you kidding me? Did you even read into any of the links you are complaining about? If you looked at the capes you would know they run in price from 40 to 60 US Dollars. I know that is not much more than crappy coats at Wal Mart in the NE USA, made in Guatamala by child labor, not USA made by leagal workforces. The outfits are less than 100 Dollars for a set. Again, real materials and not crap from somwhere those children can’t pronounce yet.
These are not rich mommies pouting. These are real parents trying to buy local and handmade, and as you copied and obviously didn’t bother to read: “Reviews of Stylish Baby Gear and Inexpensive Alternatives by Real Moms”. Inexpensive Alternatives, was I able to clear that up for you? Do you know what they mean by upscale? They mean they are buying natural, handmade, local, all the things Wal Mart and Target are not, to give heir chidren safer products while supporting our local economies instead of the large corporations. They are buying from parents working from home so they can stay home and raise their kids instead of sending them to daycare centers to learn how to be judgemental and materialistic.
By the way, how many of those organic fiber baby sweaters do you think have any lead at all? That also probably just means wool or cotton in case you weren’t aware. How many of the synthetic sweaters, again made overseas by child labor, do you think last an entire season with one child, unlike the natural sweaters that can go through multiple children? Or how many home knitters are using buttons made in China that are almost solid lead? How many of the eco friendly dolls will test with any lead at all, unlike all those Barbies did last year?
Maybe you were right the first time in not posting until you read and knew what you were talking about.
Sorry if you took things personally, Helen.
If you read anything in my blog, you’ll soon discover that I’m no friend of the big corporation. Most every policy I favor is strongly opposed by business interests. And I’ll likely make my living suing those same business interests.
My primary concern is making sure kids aren’t exposed to lead and other harmful chemicals. If we have to err at all, I’d rather err on the side of caution, even if that means hurting some businesses. Just because profits are going to individual people instead of conglomerates doesn’t make me think they should be allowed to sell dangerous products.
Again, my preference would be for the government to foot the bill for the tests for businesses unable to pay for them. But from what I can tell, no one else is making that suggestion. Instead, some people are trying to use the points you and others make to scuttle the entire law. This will of course have the effect of keeping those dangerous Barbies you mention on the market.
Another point I’ve been hesitant to make, but will anyway: Does anyone REALLY think the feds will invest the time and money to go after these home businesses? For God’s sake, the government can’t even properly investigate PHARMACEUTICAL companies and peanut butter manufacturers. If the government can’t manage to supervise a few dozen corporations, I doubt it will be crawling all over one and two person shops who sell handmade clothes.
I don’t take anything personally when I know somebody doesn’t get it. Sorry if I took your repeated bashing of so called “rich mommies” in any other way than your intention of bashing lead in kids products, my bad. May I quote you for a moment: “I couldn’t care less if specialized vendors who serve the leisure class can no longer sell their useless wares”, sorry I missed the part about safety for kids.
My point is not coming across. In all of the products you mentioned, they are not the lead threats. Organic wool does not have any lead. The people they are going after are not the ones posing the threats. The manufacturers of our yarns and fabrics have already done this testing and come up all clear. Can their certificates be used, NO. The problem cases did not come from products made here by small business. No lead in the wooden barns, or the vegetable dyes coloring our textiles. Soy based ink on the paper in our childrens books. Why test two dolls seperately when their only differnce is only in size? Or baby dresses? School books? This work is all being repeated needlessly. The testing is already being done on the base materials.
Since congress wants this to be retroactive, on Feb 10 should the public libraries ban all kids under 13 or should they send the kids books to a landfill and buy all new ones that have been tested and relabeled? Which way should schools go for all those school supplies?
People are making handmade items to keep our kids safe from the crap made in China, but soon they won’t be able to get anything but the crap made in China. Walmart and Target, like in you previous example will be the only places that can sell in the quantity needed to aviod the cost prohibitiveness of this whole act.
This law is a joke to anyone that takes the time to read the whole thing and understand the products being targeted and why. Since the feds are in such a pinch for money, of course they will go out there. The first offense is $5,000 and second is $100,000 with possible jail time. They don’t have to go after them. All they need to do is order any of thousands of products from etsy or ebay. Look around at any of the state and county fairs they are inspecting anyway. Art and craft fairs, flea markets, farmer’s markets.
It is rediculous how misunderstood this all is. This act will do nothing to the companies that it needs to target compared to the thousands of businesses and families it ruins.
Setting aside the effect this will have on smaller vendors, don’t you agree that it will also force big stores to ensure their products aren’t contaminated by lead? And if so, don’t you also agree this will protect at least one child?
If so, that brings us back to the question: How many small businesses is a child’s life worth?
With respect to enforcement: There’s no way the feds have tens of thousands of inspectors to scour art fairs, farmers markets, etc. Nor do I think they’re going to hunt vendors down on ebay. What’s really more likely to happen is that Target will complain about Wal-Mart, and vice versa. Big companies will use this as a bludgeon against other big companies. Just because a fine is $100k doesn’t mean a small vendor can afford to pay it. The feds don’t want to spend $10k to bring a prosecution if the defendant can’t afford to pay any fines. Like you said, they’re pinched for money.
I’ve twice suggested having the government pay for the testing for vendors who can’t afford the tests themselves. Do you have a different solution that (a) Keeps products with lead away from kids, and (b) isn’t too harsh on small businesses?
Big stores can already afford it. Big stores don’t care about this. They can charge one hundredth of a cent for each one of those Barbies and still be ahead of the game. And they will get more sales from the rich mommies that can’t buy a local natural product. Yes, it will protect at least one child from lead. Protect them from the products being imported by big stores from foreign countries. What it will also do on a much larger scale is put children into poverty when their families are losing businesses and homes. Unemployment rates will go up. Welfare will go up. In turn, there goes taxes up when people can’t even afford food.
I would be interested in knowing about any domestically made products with domestic components that have had lead problems. Test the crap coming in from countries that have not already had lead laws since way back in the 70′s.
That is what small biz wants, protection for their kids. Why do they make these things in the first place. Security from the unsafe products coming in from Walmart and the like. They want to use certificates from the manufactures of the base materials. Not repetative testing that only makes money for the test facilities and big stores. Let’s tell all the Grandmas knitting cotton baby hats to donate to their local hospital for NICU babies that nobody will take them.
Why retest a doll made from wool and cotton when the wool and cotton have already been tested by the suppliers? Why retest that same doll again if it is made in a 15″ baby doll size and then changed to an 18″ size with no change in the materials used? The testing required to test an all natural waldorf doll of cotton and wool is over $1000. For a doll selling for less than $100 that can be passed down from generation to generation. Lets just go to walmart and buy a trashy half naked Bratz doll instead.
BTW, feds are already at markets like that in most places at least twice a year for inspections, beginning with departments of health and continuing through to the dept of agriculture. They are already there. I know that because I manage a farmer’s market and see it every year. Scouring etsy or ebay would take a 30 second search and net thousands. Easy pickings. Enforcement will not only come from the feds. It will come from people not educated about lead in material supplies refusing to buy a perfectly safe and lead free product because it has no labels or certificates. There goes sales of what people do try to still sell.
It makes absolutely no sense to have the government do the testing. In case I haven’t said it before, the testing is already being done on most products.
First, use existing certificates from material manufacturers. Secondly, some materials are just not going to have lead, period. I would bet my homestead that the wool on the sheep in my backyard does not contain lead. Exempt the products that are naturally lead free. Thirdly, test individual components, not final products. Is my wool going to have more lead if I use it for natural doll stuffing or if I knit and felt it into a purse? If they are using products that could contain any lead at all, they should be tested, by all means. At supplier level at least.
Let’s get real here. What would the new fed dept be called to deal with that? The dept of repetativeness, of the dept of bankruptcy promotion? The country is cutting funding to special ed, medicaid, schools, why on earth would it be feasible for them to test a book or dress they will make no money on? I can’t think of a way that would make sense on any level. Spread out the cost to the big suppliers that can charge pennies extra for products and still come out ahead. They are the ones that should be responsible for the products, not the small biz that just mixes together some materails into something to sell.
I would choose to buy supplies from companies that I knew were being responsible with my purchasing dollar. It would then drive out the businesses selling the lead crap naturally through consumer demand.
You say “I started this article off by stating that there may be good arguments against the law, but the rise in cost of “coordinated mother-daughter outfits” wasn’t one. And I stand by that.” I happen to agree with you on that one statement. But you use it in defense of the entire CPSIA legislation, just as you accuse others of using one argument to try to knock it down. I am opposed to the legislation on the grounds of, for lack of a better metaphor, trying to kill a mosquito with an atomic bomb. If toys and jewelry are the proven problem, let’s target them and deal with that without include clothing and books, which I attest have never been shown to be a source of lead poisoning.
Justin, what I think you have failed to realize is that the small work at home mom is not the “designer” supplier. The designer companies can afford to test, the designer companies are those who are having their products massed produced and made in China. And, you seem to be against freedom of choice, because you will lose this if the government forces small American businesses to shut down. Essentially all that will be left are the big giants of mass produced products. I guess you like the government dictating what you will wear and where you buy your clothes..cause that will come next. This law may start with the idea of protecting kids by putting restrictions on products for kids 12 and under, but next you will find the government saying that if you (an adult) are wearing a shirt that hasn’t been tested then you can’t pick your child up and hold it because you may containimate your child. Children come in contact with many “non child” items everyday of their lives. The telephone they use, the school desks they sit in, the wash clothes they bathe with, the towels they dry off with, the water they drink (many of which are from lead tainted pipes in old homes). And, as far as I know there are NO reports of lead containimation from skin contact with products, it’s only from injesting them. Where will the government draw the line? They are assuming all kids up to the age of 12 are still chewing, sucking or biting on things. Actually I’ve seen a few adults who do so why limit kids? Do they think kids eat from, use, sleep on, and touch ONLY products made for kids? We all know of course they don’t!
This law was nothing more than a quick “shut up” response to the public who cried the government is not protecting us when the 2007 lead in toy scare came up. The CPSC only had one active inspector, short staffed, low on funds, and had every excuse and still does as to why they cannot and did not do their job. So, instead of doing what they were suppose to do..go after those big giants who were importing those tainted toys and beefing up inspections on them, they decided to make a “one rule fits all” law which basically gets them off the hook of having to actually work. Oh and the Stay they made was a stay of enforcement ..by them..ha they got off of even having to enforce this law!! Which by the way ..can still be enforced, policed by the State Attorney General, which the one in PA has already said how he will persue. Makes me wonder if there was some kind of kickbacks or payoffs by the big giants. Acting Chairman, Nancy Nord was accused in 2007 of working for them too! And, this stimulus package that is trying to get passed..where do you think the money is coming from? OUR government doesn’t have it. It will be borrowed money from other countries..and what better way to pay them back than by making sure we keep Walmart as well as the other big companies running so that they in turn can keep their citizens employeed thus repaying back our debt to them.
Besides you get more contanimation from the dirt you walk around on, and the air you breathe. But hey we don’t have to pay for those things do we?
Do you think that especially creative people who need money should not be permitted to make their living selling designer mother-daughter outfits and organic fiber baby sweaters?
Do you think there’s something immoral about an artist doing what she loves best and then finding someone who can afford to pay her fairly for her unusual time investment?
Do you think that artists who want to make handcrafted products should only be permitted to make ordinary cheap stuff that could make them only $4 or $5/hour at best? Would that be the only way to satisfy your sense of fairness?
I know a woman who makes organic fiber baby sweaters. She is extremely creative, and I really think she deserves every bit of what she gets for raising sheep, shearing sheep, carding, dyeing, spinning and knitting her special creations.
If her product comes out to be too expensive for my budget, well, she is not my slave, and I have not been treated unfairly. Let her sell her product to someone else who can fairly reward her generously for her time and talent.
This is why conservatives are happier people. I can know that another woman in putting her baby in an organic baby sweater so that my friend can pay for her retired husband’s medication–and I can go off to Goodwill (before CPSIA) and find clean, unworn or barely worn baby clothing for $3.99 or $4.99 per item. Both babies are dressed, and no one has been abused, least of all the crafter who happily found someone who could afford her talent and time.
I own a business selling used books, and I can tell you that my business NEEDS rich people. I couldn’t very well comb the earth looking for a first edition Hemingway if I weren’t allowed to sell it for a price that you think is outrageous and that I think is only fair given the many hours that I have to spend going through boxes of other people’s junk.
A wealthy person spending money? There are two sides to that equation every time, and there’s a good reason why BOTH parties are generally thrilled when a 30 hour crafting project becomes a $400 sale. (You do the math and see if you can’t, for a moment, consider this as fair.)
If you want to rant, rant at the most talented crafters on the planet who really should be making very ordinary stuff in no time, not enjoying their work so much, and not aspiring to turn basic materials into exceptionally beautiful things.
Does life become fair only when the world’s most talented seamstress is forced to sit at the same factory table cutting out the same basic pajamas over and over again, day after day from hiring to retiring?
She might not think so.
If especially creative people are turning out clothing that is harmful to babies or kids, then no, I don’t care about their needs.
Conservatives are happier people my ass. How many conservatives are closet homosexuals who bash other gays (Ted Haggard), or are drug addicts who demand law and order (Rush Limbaugh), or decry the promiscuity of liberals when they can’t keep their own teenage daughter’s legs closed (Sarah Palin), or profess to be for God/Jesus when they back wars Jesus would surely oppose (Just about everyone in the last administration)? Conservatives aren’t happier people – they’re just self righteous.
If you want to comb the Earth for Hemingway, good for you. Unless it’s a copy that he himself once held, I see no added value between a first edition and a cheap paperback I can get at the store today… but people like to collect different things and I won’t judge your hobbies if you don’t judge mine.
As I’ve said countless times before, if you want me to oppose CPSIA, then show me that it won’t do what it’s supposed to, which is protect kids. Don’t tell me that the cost of that protection is too high, because I’m not very sympathetic to those arguments.
Allow me an analogy: You point out that crafters are (a) happier because they do what they love, (b) contributing to the economy by spending their money, and (c) providing a desired service, and therefore we should repeal CPSIA regardless of the harm their products cause.
Well, pot growers are (a) happier because they do what they love, (b) contribute to the economy, and (c) provide a very desired service. Should we repeal the drug laws? If you don’t think so, you likely don’t think so because of the negative effects drugs cause… so why aren’t you willing to look at the negative effects of lead poisioning, for instance?
Again, if you can show me that the CPSIA was passed on a false premise and that it will not make products safer, I might change my position. But I’ll never change my position just because it might put people out of work, or, God forbid, force a creative person to work a “regular” job.
Quite a week, indeed. – skin treatment
Quite a week, indeed. -eluhealthcare
Quite a week, indeed. – health products
Quite a week, indeed. -Beauty solutions
Quite a week, indeed. -elushopper
Thank you very much for the great information.
Thanks
Online Sports
This is so lame. I guess we just have to respect those who are saddened by small things like this.
Trendy mother’s like their children to wear branded clothes and believe it the moment the baby spoils it your money starts flowing down the drain.Right?
Thanks for a awesome post and interesting comments. I found this post while searching the web for free stuff. Thanks
Welcome to http://www.lovedigitizing.com, we will offer best service and quality for your embroidery digizing. Please believe Love Embroidery Digitizing will be your best partner.