The link is to an article an video newscast on the new law affecting children's consignment stores from New Port Richey, FL - mentions NARTS is hiring lawyers to try and do something in Washington near end.

Good for this shop owner for contacting her local press!

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/mostpop/story.aspx?storyid=96284&provider=top

Amongst all the other myriad things I normally do at this crazy time of year now there is this issue to deal with. After doing my research and talking with my lawyer and going over my insurance policies (officer liability etc) I'm working on the notices and changes to literature and web site and stuff about how this issue affects our consignors - and explanations in store for shoppers (for why the kid's sections are going to be so decimated)

Is anyone doing any emails to consignors or in-store info stuff to try and get our customers to join the letter/email campaign to the powers that be? The February date is, for all intents and purposes about 6 weeks away.

BTW I've already had a consignor bring in a piece of baby gear with a version of the 'new' notice on it - one of those stick-the-kid-in-it-so-the-can-roll-around things - ugh! Big old ugly label sewn into the back of the seat. Ugly, ugly.

The news story continues... but notice that this statement re "one-of-a-kind" being exempt is NOT in the law, it's merely the public relations person talking to a TV station.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/columnist/story.aspx?storyid=96355&catid=79

BTW, the last thing on earth I would do is get my customers involved. It would alarm them and make them leery of any secondhand goods for unspecified reasons. If you want to test the power of "word-of-mouth"... just give them something negative/ fearful/ scary to spread the word about. "Don't ever buy things used, they're DANGEROUS!!!!"
Kate

Thank goodness you have a cooler head on your shoulders. I hadn't thought about that! My first reaction is to DO something and I hadn't thought that part thru. Thanks. Haha - also saves me some work!

When the reporter says, "So, consignment shops are in the clear," is that HIS interpretation? Regardless, there is nothing in writing. I'm torn between telling customers (so they can call their respective congressmen/senators, which may not help anyway) or not telling them.

Looking forward to hearing from NARTS and something concrete.

I've felt the same way Kate. While I want to make them aware, I'm sure there are many who would be freaked out and/or think great, these hazards need to be eliminated.

I have the benefit of being in a very green place so the people (not customers) that I've talked to I hype the anti-recycling, landfill filling aspect of this.

As you can see from the comments to the article it is a very touchy line between the real dangers and the perceived dangers. Her comment about this being worse than lead poisioning is what I fear. I'm sure that is not what she meant to say in any way but once you get talking things come out that don't sound right or get twisted.

I agree with Kate 100%... bringing customers into this fight is the last thing I recommend!!! It’s risky to criticize the CPSIA. The law is very popular with consumers. The problem we have is that because it is so complex, they don't understand it beyond thinking it will protect children from dangerous toys and don't realize what the effects will be. I have literally spent hundreds of hours researching and working on CPSIA and the one thing I can tell you in all certainty is that the Act is ornately complex!!!

Now I'd like to clarify a few things:
1. Cynthia's message says the TV story "mentions NARTS is hiring lawyers" - the story actually said "consulting" lawyers. The correct information, which we just sent to our members is: We are being assisted and guided—Pro Bono—by an excellent product safety attorney who held a position at the CPSC before leaving to join the private sector. We are currently acting on the plans and suggestions he has formulated for us.

2. The 2nd story the Tampa Bay TV station ran titled "Consignment shops are in the clear after Feds clear up new lead law" is so misleading and full of incorrect info I can't even begin to address it. I think the reporter even said that it JUST became illegal to sell recalled products... where has she been? Don't believe everything you see and read about this issue... untruths are running rampant.

3. There is another thread on here - "Who to contact re CPSIA" - encouraging store owners to phone someone at the CPSC. Of course I can't tell any of you what you can or can't do but I can tell you that if you go down that road you will do our cause more harm than good. NARTS has an open line of communication with the CPSC as we always have and we are working on behalf of the entire resale industry. I understand your concern and your desire to be proactive but know that NARTS is being very proactive, however when dealing with government agencies and Congress nothing moves too quickly. If you want to help, PLEASE do not bombard the CPSC with phone calls. However, letting your congressional leaders know your concern is another matter. I am working on a sample letter and will be more than happy to share it with all of you when it is ready.

We are not the only industry with seriious concerns about the implementation of the CPSIA and I am in contact with other associations (most much larger and more powerful than we are) who are also working toward a compromise that will protect children without the unintended consequences this Act will have on businesses if it goes into effect unaltered.

I'm living & breathing CPSIA these days... Adele

Adele R. Meyer, Executive Director
NARTS
www.narts.org

It's a hard thing, to say that some law "safeguarding our children" is a bit overboard and will do more harm than good. So probably, the media (which is scared for its life in these changing times) has been avoiding the whole issue/ can of worms. I can't find much in the general media. Here's some of what I found on the web:

Press release from the Handmade Toy Alliance:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/12/prweb1756514.htm

A business journal article, talking to business owners, easy read:
http://cms.ibj.com/ASPXPages/6iframes/FrontEndArticlesDetailPage.aspx?ArticleID=26712&NoFrame=1

A personal statement by a small manufacturer...she is so much like so many people we know:
http://www.patriotledger.com/opinions/x845827383/New-law-to-put-thousands-out-of-work

Here's an excellent discussion that addresses many aspects. A quote from it:
One of the most amazing things that came out during the course of my research was just how little this law is going to do to improve toy safety - indeed, it will most likely make children’s products more dangerous by causing the CPSC to focus on catching paperwork errors instead of finding dangerous products. This is true even though the bill significantly increases the agency’s budget.
Read the whole article, and more, here: http://donklephant.com/2008/12/17/when-good-intentions-go-wrong/
Same author on same topic: http://www.culture11.com/article/34090?from=feature

Ah, about those "independent testing labs"... think THEY had much to do with the law? Who stands to profit? is the question, and here's the answer, a proud press release from... "an internationally recognized and accredited third-party testing partner":
http://www.intertek.com/newsroom/latestnews/producttestingcapacity/?lang=en

Okay, here's a sample of the "general public" information being disseminated:

“Hidden hazards” in children’s toys still abound: http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/12/08/hidden-hazards-in-childrens-toys-still-abound/

Alarmist and quite fact-ignoring article:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/12/pubcit_toxic_toys.html

I'm sure there are more sources out there; if you run across some you think the rest of use should read, please post the links here.

Remember, please, read all of the above, with a critical eye... not everything is true or rational. But at least you'll have a better handle on what's going on, if you can spare some time today.

I e-mailed the authors of this article asking them to contact NARTS for information on how this will affect childrens' clothing & equipment resellers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/20/AR2008122001878.html

I have been in touch with Annys Shin one of the writers of that article since early this month. I sent her complete information on how CPSIA affects the resale industry, consumers and the environment. The PR specialist from another retail apparel association also worked with Annys... but it seems the focus of this article was toys, not apparel and/or resale.

I also spent over an hour on the phone last week with a writer from a very major, national publication for an article that is supposed to be published in January.

Adele R. Meyer, Executive Director
NARTS
800.544.0751
http://www.narts.org

I've been searching over the last two days for any and all info I can read on this. I'm trying not to jump to conclusions or stress too much about this until I *get it*. You're definitely right about the lack of media attention given to this issue though. The most I could find were blogs from people like us, and Etsy sellers. I contacted my congressman so hopefully he can help me sort it out (I'm not holding my breath though.)

When I was reading the CPSIA section 108 faqs, I found this paragraph:

If the phthalates ban only applies to products manufactured on or after February 10, 2009, how can consumers tell whether products do or do not contain phthalates?

Manufacturers and retailers can label products as complying with the limits in the CPSIA for phthalates regardless of when they were manufactured. The new statute permits products to be labeled as complying with CPSC requirements as long as that representation is accurate. Congress provided for stiff penalties if a company labels a product as compliant when it is not. Retailers can segregate products that meet the phthalates limits in certain areas of the store similar to how many grocery stores have grouped organic products together in one location. Many manufacturers eliminated phthalates from their products and have shared that information with their retailers. DEHP, one of the permanently banned phthalates, apparently has not been used in pacifiers, soft rattles, and teethers since 1999. When in doubt, the consumer should ask the retailer or manufacturer of the product whether it contains phthalates.

Posted 12/04/2008.

This seems to imply that some manufacturers have been meeting these new phthalates standards for a while. Do you think we can get info directly from the manufacturer to determine if a particular product meets the requirements... for example Carters sleepers-- or-- Fisher Price swings manufactured since 2005?

I'm just wondering if this is one way we can still comply with the new legislation and stay in business. I'm going to call Mattel (Fisher Price, American Girl, Barbie, Hot Wheels) and ask about phthalates. Maybe they can answer some of my ??s about the new legislation.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) ruled that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) section relating to phthalates is proactive. That means only items made after Feb. 9th must meet the new law. Existing items can still be sold. This differs from the CPSC's ruling concerning lead. They ruled that the section relating to lead is retroactive. This means the date of manufacture is not relevant and that no uncertified children's item may be sold after February 9, 2009. Phthalates should not be a problem for resale. Right now, lead is the problem.

Brian Thompson
The Children's Closet

Read the end if nothing else.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-toys23-2008dec23,0,2707481.story

http://culture11.com/blogs/upturnedearth/2008/12/22/all-your-powers-of-prudential-judgment-are-belong-to-the-federal-government/

http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/951949.html

I found this article on a members only forum but I thought it was important to share. I hope that it is ok that I post it Kate.

If this is the case, it is a huge sigh of relief for us children's resalers.

CPSC Says Ban on Phthalates Is Not Retroactive



(12/1/2008)


Only products manufactured after Feb. 10, 2009, will need to meet the new phthalates restrictions as set forth in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), according to Cheryl A. Falvey, General Council for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Section 180 of the CPSIA limits the amount of certain types of phthalates in specific categories of children's products. This section also indicates that these limitations "shall be considered a consumer products safety standard under the Consumer Product Safety Act," wrote Falvey in a letter dated Nov. 17. As a result, the phthalates ban will only be applicable to products manufactured after Feb. 10 and will not be applied retroactively to inventory as of that date, Falvey wrote.

In contrast, children's products that do not meet the new lead limits by Feb. 10 will be treated as a "banned hazardous substance" under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, Falvey stated in the letter. According to the law, it is illegal "to sell, offer for sale, manufacture for sale, distribute in commerce, or import into the Unites States" any banned hazardous substance, she added. For further details, visit www.cpsc.gov.

I think the previous article is just saying that the phthalate levels are not going to be the problem after February...it is the lead that is the problem for reselling of items.

Newbie 1 is right... Phthalates have NEVER been retroactive. However, the new lead standards ARE retroactive because lead is considered a "hazardous substance" in the Act. That is the crux of the problem for our industry and others.

CPSC staff has made recommendations to the Commission for exclusions of some natural materials. It's FAR from a solution (for a variety reasons) but is at least the first sign of their recognition that a problem exists.

Adele R. Meyer, Executive Director
NARTS
http://www.narts.org

I am in a holding pattern at the moment and keep hoping for a dose of wisdom from somebody. We are less than six weeks away from D-day and I have a store full of merchandise to consider. Are other stores planning to continue selling their stuff illegally past the deadline, in hopes that the law will be changed? I am having a hard time weighing the consequences of being "busted" to the tune of $100,000 and 5 years in prison... It's not something I am able to bury my head in the sand about now.

Would love to hear what others are planning to do right now!

Dani

Have you contacted your local politicians? The CPSC? I have and I have not been getting answers so I'm networking with folks trying to get contacts to get some answers.
I really don't think they are going to shut us all down as of Feb. 10th. I stopped by two local shops today to talk with their owners. One was unaware though she is primarily a women s shop and the other was aware but unaware of the retro activity and felt that is was just related to manufacturers.

I wish I didn't know too:)

We are a ladies, women's, kids store and we purchase kids clothing upfront year round so we have about 60k in kids spring inventory plus winter inventory. Since I'm not positive what will happen in the wash or if anything will happen until D day we have marked all our winter 1/2 off..donated the junk that's ready to be donated and did an early spring preview of our kids spring. We are promoting this as a positive preview and not saying anything to upset our customers..they will know soon enough. My goal is to make back at least my investment..wait till the 9th hour and if nothing has changed dump the rest..take the write off (since we own it) and make it a new, expanded and improved juniors dept until the items start recirculating enough to open kids back up. Also since it's for 12 and under we will push a tween dept for size 14-16 girls like hollister, abercrombie, justice. Juniors is a huge seller! I did think for a second about the well they can't police everyone...but the bottom line is...I won't risk being shut down, fined and God forbid lockup for it. I truely feel for the kid only stores on here and hope that they pass amendents for positive changes in our favor everyday.
My 2 cents.
Melissa Baxter
www.bbpdconsignment.com

We're doing much the same as Melissa and for the same reasons in both our stores and the thrift we operate to benefit local charities. The risks of continuing to sell the stuff past February 10th is not worth it to us. Unless some very clear, understandable changes are made before then - pfui as Nero Wolfe says! And we thought dealing with the state's Department of Used Bedding and Upholstery regulations is bad - huh.

Ebayers are telling me they are freaking because eBay will require them to provide the certificates for under 12 items (which they of course don't/won't have) or they will yank the auctions after 2/10 and report them. Don't know if that's true - just reporting what I've been told. Two women who run three of the largest bi-annual kid's sales in our area are completely catatonic. Several high-end kids retailers in our local retail group had no idea about this new law and have been completely blind-sided. One just renewed a long-term lease on expensive space.

We already have twice daily dumpster service - I'm thinking we're going to need a roll-off soon. Poor Mother Earth. Scary times for kid's resalers. My heart goes out to each one of you.

Unfortunately I am a complete skeptic when it comes to hopes our government acting in a logical, rational or reasonable manner. This is a very hot-button issue on top of it. I'm afraid I just don't have much hope that legislators will 'do the right thing' except for perhaps, the organic, handmade toy industry.

I am an Ebay powerseller and Ebay has made no such proclamation or said anything about this bill. I would suspect that it is not on their radar yet.

Oh - eBay knows about this law. I'm quite sure they have contact with the CPSC. They don't really need to make a huge deal about it and stir up stuff with their sellers - because it's all covered in their basic policies like the one on recalled products:
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/recalled.html

or can easily be modified by them. I didn't take the time to look but they probably have one about not selling banned hazardous stuff - which everything will be considered until it is tested to prove it has no lead in it - lead being a banned hazardous material -if I understand things correctly.

One of the power sellers told me they've started a new community forum on the subject on eBay's site.

In all of the reading I've been doing about this I've run across lots of blogs from the hand made and small kids clothing and toy makers that often state that if they are going to be put out of business they will most certainly also report anyone they find selling stuff illegally.

Good way for US based eBay sellers to promptly lose their status on eBay I would think. If WE can't sell the stuff the way the current law is written in our stores - why would anyone be able to sell it on eBay to US buyers? Fairly certain that would be illegal as well.

But the problem with this law is that it is pretty much unenforceable and ebay certainly does not have the bandwidth or "will" to enforce this. When Ebay gets faced with this stuff they argue that they are a venue, not a seller so they are not liable. Of course they don't always win this argument in court. They do very little to confront counterfitters. The site is rampant with fakes so I'm led to believe they would do very little to police this.

I guess my only point is that Ebay has no official policy on this and reps that I have spoken to are not familiar with this law. Of course, if the law really means what we think it means then of course, this market will also be greatly reduced. I know you said you didn't know if it was true or not and as far as I can see it is not true. Of course ebay has a way of leaving their reps uninformed and communicating poorly with their sellers:)

This leads me to separate question though... this certificate is maintained by manufacturers, but how do end users know this item has been produced after the Feb. 10th and tested? It was my understanding that these certificates are on file with the manufacturer and made available at request of the govt, and of course to retailers.

Wendy, as I understand it (and with this poorly written law ...) yes there are labeling requirements that the manufacturers have to meet as well as advertising requirements. See my later post with a link - although there are lots of other info places including the CPSC website for more info. There are differing dates, again as I understand it, for compliance for the different types of products.

It is just a gut feeling, but I think that eBay won't have much choice but to pay attention to the new law, the same with Etsy.com. The fact the 50 state attorney general offices are being called upon to help enforce it - and many of the irrate small handmade and crafter businesses that may be put out of business helping to police very obvious places like eBay for non-compliant products - hmmm - just don't think eBayers would be wise to think they will be able to continue business as usual. The stiff penalties and possible jail time alone should make sellers think twice I would think.

When you try and purchase some kids stuff from ebay, it will tell you a little about the issues going on.

They have the CPSC warning about recalled products that they have always had but I don't see anything about the CPSIA?

For those who are thinking about continuing to sell if this law is not amended or changed, after the 2/10 date because you don't feel CPSC will 'find' you - here's something to think about:

http://www.nixonpeabody.com/publications_detail3.asp?ID=2539

That made our decision definite.

While I carry a HUGE selection of toys, baby gear, baby equipment, and furniture(about 60%), and my customers love the large selection, I am thinking I will downsize immediatley. I have been running sales to move all my kids merchandise out. I have a large selection of maternity, so that would be about the only thing I could carry after Feb. The amount of items for my over 4000 sq ft would be pathetic looking. I have had a few people tell me I am worrying over nothing, but I am a WORRIER. I am not taking anything new ( I know bad for business). I have a backroom full of items(primarily clothes) to be tagged and put out and I am using that and manual inventory as my excuse to the public for now until we learn more. I was so looking forward to a Massive Celebration Year as it will be 10 years on August 1st since I opened the doors. At this moment, I don't want to get my hopes up to high for that to occur.

I don't plan to continue to operate illegal after the February, but I'm not really sure what to do in the mean time.

I believe I'm reading the law correctly which means that all of the items in my shop will be illegal to sell after the Feb date, including clothing, equipment, toys, books, etc.. - anything for a child under 12 (although I'm not sure about things like wipe warmers, monitors, bottle sterilizers, etc.. that a care giver would use for a child is included).

I'm afraid to create a panic, but doesn't this warrant a panic situation???? If we don't liquidate starting now then both my business and the consignors will suffer. I hate to be a pessimist, but do I find it hard to believe that the government is going to overturn this. If we go ahead and start liquidating and create a panic among consignors and customers, how we get back to where we were if they do happen to create exceptions?

I'm lost.

I was just reading over a few documents on cpsc website regarding exemption from the new law and I don't see anything that will exempt the resale market.

These documents were dated 12/24/08 and have a ballot vote date of 1/5/9 (located under the What's hot section on the bottom of the CPSC home page).

Looking at this from a logical point of view rather than a personal one, if the intent of this law is to remove potentially hazardous products from circulation, why would they allow an exemption for us or anyone else selling used goods?? Where would they draw the line??

I am still reading and researching, although we have made our decision to cut out kids barring last minute amendments that change our mind, because my mind is stupified by this legislation and it's a quieter time of year. But I think (reserving the right to change that as I am certainly no authority on this either) if one can afford to purchase or lease an analyzer to analyze the stuff in your store and your take in and print out the results in a format that CPSC approves you could still sell the stuff manufactured prior to the turnover dates that passed the tests/are below the new lead limits. As I understand it (again qualifying it here) stuff manufactured before the turnover dates does not have to be tested by an independent third party lab which gets really expensive, just tested to the new CPSC standard. The problem as I see it is that a niton analyzer to do it yourself costs big money to buy - not sure exactly as none of the manufacturers I found were publishing their prices, although I found one that will lease them on a monthly basis, long term, for about $800 a month. You'd have to either being doing major volume or increase your prices alot to cover just the leasing costs - then there's the labor cost factor etc.

But, I may be entirely wrong too! This is such poorly written legislation with no clear, concise help forthcoming for everyone's myriad questions.

Yes, Niecy Marie, if we were solely kids resale either b&m or online in the US I would be panicking too and trying to decide how and when to proceed - and the timeframe.

Hi Cynthia, do you think you can provide the contact info. for the company that will lease this machinery long term as you metioned in your post? I had some difficulty finding anything online. I am all children's resale, and I refuse to go down wihtout a fight. My community needs the shop too much in this economy to simply close my doors. Not to mention the employees I have. I feel responsible for them too. All you other kids resale stores out there, keep your chins up! We provide too important a service to just give in. There has to be a way around this, even if it means growing our businesses in order to meet the high cost of this testing. We are resourceful strong women. We wouldn't be in this business otherwise. I don't mean to come off like a Pollyanna. I just find it really hard to believe we could be put out of business in a little over a month. Its almost surreal. God bless you all.

Ann - I am still researching this and discussing this with several people that know about this. NARTS website mentions this technology and the cost of the machine but gives a different opinion as to the viability of using it than the ones I have been receiving.

As an example: here's one of the latest I received today (I can't quote the source as I don't have permission) to show you yet again how complicated this all is:

'Yes, you can use the Niton XRF (or any XRF) for clothing. The CPSC is requiring 3rd party accredited testing for certain items - jewelry, lead paint/coated items and eventually all children's products. Some of the 3rd party testing must be wet or digestive, not based on XRF. But those requirements apply to the manufacturer - and a thrift would by no means be the manufacturer. For those children's products manufactured between 2/10 and 8/12 of 2009, the CPSC is allowing XRF. By extension, XRF can be used for existing inventory to determine whether the children's products are banned hazardous substances.'

That is someone else's quite well-informed, educated opinion. Me? I am no expert - just an investigator type personality that can't believe, like you, that even if this law stays as it is something can't be done to work with it. We can easily give up selling kids in our stores and the thrift we operate for charity. But the waste angers me. The impact on so many of our customers at the thrift where more and more are showing up every day to avail themselves of stuff they need but can only afford through places like our thrift - is outrageous and angers me more.

I am still investigating and waiting on some opinions so I can decide whether to investigate the XRF more myself and will let you know. I am fortunate to have so many engineers in my family with a wide range of friends in so many places, knowing about so many things. Trouble is understanding them and the technospeak! Smile.You can of course do your own research, read about it on the CPSC website, NARTS website and there are many others. If you do a goggle search you will find the companies offering leases on this equipment as I had mentioned. They cost, depending on the powerfulness of it, manufacturer and the software between 22 and 40K new. These aren't 'new' pieces of equipment - the technology so to speak. This piece of equipment has been used in other industries for several years so it is not a response to this current crisis facing people due to the new law that makes them available for lease.

Gosh, the human brain cells, time, energy etc being brought to bear over this poorly crafted piece of legislation is mind-boggling.
HTH

Does anyone know whether items will have to have some sort of label in them to say they were manufactured after the date in Feb as to them complying with the new lead limit?

Of course you can always trudge through the stuff on the CPSC website as well.

http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-and-tracking-label-requirements/

HTH

I just found out that the Children's Orchard near us (the HQ store) just stopped accepting toys. Do you think the CPSIA legislation is why?

Common problem here. Gotta keep wading through this people. It is not the Phthalates portion of the law - they are not retroactive - but that covers different stuff. It is the LEAD portion which IS retroactive (for now) that is the problem for our industry.

Keep reading people - don't let your disbelief stop you when you think you've read something you WANT to read/hear when it unfortunately just isn't so.

Dear Wendy,

The CPSC has heard from many small businesses (and large ones, too) about the impact the CPSIA may have. Our staff has been trying to identify where the Act gives us flexibility and where it does not and the truth is, there are many provisions that small businesses such as yours care about where we do not have flexibility – the Act simply rules it out. That said, where the agency can be flexible, it is looking for formal public input on how to proceed and you can find those requests for comment at this web site: http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html


There has been some public discussion outside this agency about the possibility of Congress making technical amendments to the Act to provide relief for businesses like yours. I can’t predict the chances of that happening. Our Chairman has stated that the agency would be very willing to work with Congress if it goes that route.


In the meantime, many questions have been addressed in our FAQ section on the web site: http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/faqs.html You might want to give that a try. Please read this carefully. Not every product needs to be tested.


Please continue to check our website for Information on the CPSIA (http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html) as it is updated regularly. You can also sign up here (https://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsialist.aspx)

to receive email updates of our new website postings.

Because Congress wrote very, very short deadlines into the Act, CPSC has been deluged with questions about how the law will be implemented. Given the huge number of questions coming in, individual substantive replies are very difficult to do (the entire agency is only a little over 450 people and there is a ton of work to do). As a result, we add new FAQs as new questions crop up (and many questions are duplicative, as you can imagine).


I can tell you that CPSC staff is very, very aware of the issues you are facing and that we are using the limited authority we have to try to find solutions as quickly as we can.

Very best regards,



Patte

Patricia Bittner
Small Business Ombudsman
Office of International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Phone: 301-504-7263
Fax: 301-504-0137
email: pbittner@cpsc.gov
“Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail (and any attachments) are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.”

I am not seeing where this law affects "clothing". Except the Phthalates. I see the durable goods such as cribs, toys, bedding, etc... Is the clothing included? This has me sooooo confused!

I only carry clothing....was actually thinking of expanding into equipment and the like until all of this popped up! Like most here, I don't want any trouble either by the lead police or wasted money on inventory. But am I missing something? Does this apply to "clothing"?

...strange as that may seem.

To make it simplest for you, here's a quote from fashion incubator's blog:

'At the meeting I attended in Washington DC, the CPSC General Counsel Cheryl Falvey told us point blank that all textile products intended for the use of children aged 12 and under required testing. Organic clothing and baby slings were specifically mentioned as being included. The problem is a lot of people are in denial.'

You can go here http://cpsia-central.ning.com/ to easily learn more. I found it more interesting/helpful than plugging through the CPSC web site.

I read a letter Ms Falvey wrote (posted on CPSC's website) in which she advises that in general apparel is not included - with the exception of sleepwear and bibs because of the wording regarding products intended for aiding sleep or feeding. On the FAQ part of the CPSC's website regarding this issue the question is asked about whether apparel, bedding, etc is considered durable goods and they answer it saying that textile is not considered durable goods. Correct me if I am wrong but it would appear that ordinary children's clothing isn't part of this law.

Kristina

This is one of many things that causes confusion for people trying to grasp this law. There are two issues chemically speaking as I understand it. Phthalates and lead. The portion of the law dealing with Phthalates is not retroactive and covers a different type of goods (made of plastic) than the portion of the law covering lead which IS retroactive and includes everything, including clothing, made for use by a child 12 years of age and under.

Phthalates and lead are separate issues. CPSC stated “the legal analysis is different” when issuing their opinions that phthalates are NOT retroactive, but the lead standard IS retroactive.

I have seen resalers confusing this when saying they stopped taking pj's/sleepers (because of the non-skid coating on the feet.) They use phthalates in the coating and although the phthalates are not retroactive, the rest of the garment; fabric, thread, label, zipper, snaps and all and any other embellishments still need to meet the new lead standards.

Adele R. Meyer, Executive Director
NARTS

Wow, after reading some of those links above...that is just way too much info saying a whole lot of stuff that is still not telling you anything it seems to me...at least not pertaining to operating a kids consignment store after February...I am finding it hard to believe that the powers that be did not consider second hand/thrift/resale shops and the whole recycling/go green effort when making this law...seems like someone would have "brought it up" at some point! Surely they should have known the mess it was going to create. Guess they are just figuring that it would work itself out after the stock turns over enough so you are just selling the new stuff...I know I have clothing from my child that is a couple years old and still in great shape for resale and the clothes that my child got for Christmas would not be able to be resold now since they will not meet the new law I guess for lead? So confusing...so much for all those clothes I have put in storage! So what about the clothing being sold in stores now for the under 12 kids? I am confused as to the clothing that is on the sales floor on Feb 11th...that is why I am wondering if indeed this covers clothing...my hubby runs a dept store and knows nothing about this law at all and they sell toys too...like are the toys on shelves now no good to sell after that date or do they have certificates for them already?? ugh...confusing...

I do believe Ron Paul, the only legislator that didn't vote for this bills passage DID bring up the second hand market - and no one cared. The safety of children, especially after the media got the public fired up and scared to death after the recalls from Chinese imports earlier this year made this a very hot button issue. Legislators probably didn't want to draw constituents ire by NOT voting for it and be darned the consequences.

The large manufacturers of course have known about this law as they have lobbying groups and such that keep on top of stuff that would impact their industry. It does apply to clothing for children 12 and under no doubts about that because the words they used and the way they wrote it made this apply to almost everything geared for sale to children 12 and under. The painted wood buttons on that cute sweater might have lead in it - the zipper might have lead - the painted applique might have lead etc. Anyway, yes it is confusing as crap - and it shouldn't be - especially when it impacts so many different aspects of the economy. How'd you like to be a small, stay at home mom making organic toys and clothing made from organic cotton and have to have your stuff tested? Isn't THAT a kicker? No sense.

We have gotten in two items in the last few weeks that DO contain labels, as required under the new law - that the thing has been tested and complies with CPSIA. Both baby walker things - the round things (can you tell we don't sell tons of kid's gear?) I haven't been in the stores much in the last week or so and thus haven't looked at the kid's clothing - but clothing in general is way stockpiled by most bigger retailers due to dismal sales and the economy - so haven't seen any clothing coming through differently.

I suspect that your husband doesn't know about the law because the management and buyers are handling all that and deciding what to do with the current stock and he'll just get inventory instructions - however they do that in his organization. He's in charge of selling what they send him right? No need to stir him up and deluge him with info he has no need to bother with. I'm sure at some point, once big outfits like his decide what they are doing and how they'll send around some piece of corporate info.At least that's usually how it works right? The apparel manufacturers are probably all lobbying pretty hard in Washington right now trying to push for changes to this thing, hoping for quicker resolutions so their members can make their best decisions under the circumstances.

The CPSC as I understand it currently only has about 450 staff members and they are being swamped with calls for clarifications, requests for amendments and the like - glad I'm not in their shoes - as it is their job to carry out what congress instructs. Seems they haven't had a chance to catch their breath - and if their increased funding hasn't come through yet (the government handles such things in a very onerous way) - they are probably doing the best they can - but that doesn't console us - it doesn't me.

I liked Ron Paul.

Just a wild guess, but there probably aren't a lot of politicians that buy their children "used" items. They probably have this impression that consignment is for the very poor and we have to SAVE those people from their own stupidity of not knowing that the toys are toxic.

I'm sure they have no idea how many middle to upper class educated people shop "used" because, well it is just smart!

that the politicians ACT on their "impression"s, rather than doing the job we HIRE them for: to research ways to implement the powers that the US Constitution, and ONLY the US Constitution, gives them.

The number of bills and acts voted on by OUR EMPLOYEES without them even reading the darn thing, yet alone investigating and mulling over the implications, is enough to make a strong citizen weep.

If you agree with this statement:
We want every member of Congress to constantly confront the question “Do you think you should have to read the laws you pass?”

you might want to visit here: http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/27

Oh, and BTW? Don't take "I didn't read the bill" as an excuse...any more than you'd take "I didn't read the consignor agreement"...
difference is a: the politician was HIRED BY YOU to read, examine, interpret and extrapolate the bill. He/she is not a free agent like your potential consignor. Reading the bill is their JOB. One for which you pay good money (and lifetime retirement benefits, too).
and b: That person who didn't "read the bill" can (and does) fine you, put you in jail, bankrupt you and send your child off to die.

You can see why I have been basically mum on this issue, can't you? Froth doesn't go with my shade of lipstick.
Kate

OMG! I first read about this right before Christmas and have been trying to research it ever since. We're exclusively a children's shop. Does this mean we're officially out of business as of Feb. 10th? What are other children's shops doing? I'm just sick over this!

I'm still trying to digest this, and I'm shocked there isn't more immediate media attention given to the matter.

I'm starting to panic that I'll be out of business just six months into this game! I'm not sure what to do next... if I stop all incoming then that would alert my clients to a bad vibe. If I keep taking it in, then I'm opening myself up for world of hurt. I'm about 2/3 clothes, but the gear/toys are my most in-demand items (1/3 of the shop!).

Business is slow right now, but this law would put it at a halt, that's for sure.

Forgive me if someone already put a link on this out here - there's so much discussion going on I'm getting lost!

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/322.pdf

This is a letter from an attorney, written to Cheryl Falvey about the reconsideration of the retroactive nature of the new law - I think it was an excellent letter and really addresses the issues with it.

But wow, this guy was denied in a one paragraph reply from her.

I'm closing this thread, only to keep the conversation manageable. If you have something to add here, please start a new thread...
1-1-09
Kate