Posts tagged as:

CPSIA and libraries

CPSIA chronicles, February 19

by Walter Olson on February 19, 2009

StrongerWhenLinked

Tagged as: , , , , , , ,

{ 14 comments }

New York Times on CPSIA: “needless fears that the law could injure smaller enterprises”

by Walter Olson on February 18, 2009

blowingbubblesatus
Clueless. Disgraceful. Grossly ill-informed. And cruelly hard-hearted toward families and businesses across the country that are facing economic ruin.

Yes, after months of silence, the editorialists of the New York Times have finally weighed in with their view of how CPSIA is going. How bad did you expect their editorial to be? It’s that bad, and worse.

nytimes

In a six-paragraph editorial about toy safety, exactly one paragraph is spent informing readers that anything about the law might have aroused any public criticism. And here is that paragraph:

Unfortunately, the commission has yet to implement important aspects of the new law. The delay has caused confusion and allowed opponents to foment needless fears that the law could injure smaller enterprises like libraries, resale shops and handmade toy businesses.

Got that? “Confusion” about the law, and “delay” in implementing it, are the real problems. Fears that small business will be hurt are “needless” and are being “fomented” by presumably sinister opponents.

Or, put differently: anyone who imagines this law might be impractical for libraries, resale shops, handmade toy businesses, or other small businesses is just imagining things — fooled, perhaps, by misinformation spread by the law’s opponents.

Libraries are just imagining things if they listen to people like Emily Sheketoff, associate executive director of the American Library Association, who spoke to the press last month about the choices facing libraries if some sort of exemption could not be found. (“Either they take all the children’s books off the shelves,” she said, “or they ban children from the library.”) Or people like Chip Gibson, president and publisher of Random House Children’s Books, who spoke to Publisher’s Weekly about the prospective effects of the law: “This is a potential calamity like nothing I’ve ever seen. The implications are quite literally unimaginable. …It has to be stopped.” It’s true that the CPSC’s last-minute stay of enforcement did save the new-children’s-book trade from calamity — but remember, to the Times, “delay” has been one of the problems in implementing the law, not something that has (so far) spared us its worst effects.

whirlpoolgame

Thrift stores are just imagining things if they listen to people like Adele Meyer, executive director of the National Association of Resale and Thrift Shops, who said, “The reality is that all this stuff will be dumped in the landfill.” They should ignore all the reports, no matter how numerous and from how many sources, of local Goodwill operations and other thrift stores’ closing children’s departments or sweeping more than half their contents off the shelves, and of kids’ resellers and consignment shops taking massive financial hits or closing down entirely. All of these episodes are either imaginary or, if conceded as real, an instance of overreaction to the needless fears those moustache-twirling opponents have “fomented”. (Some more thrift-store coverage not previously linked: North Carolina, Nebraska, Minnesota with Goodwill pic, upstate New York (“We can’t be sure of the risk unless we take everything off the shelf”), South Dakota, Colorado). They should also stop predicting that the pursuit of their charitable missions will suffer a major blow from the loss of children’s resale revenue, because that sort of thing just undermines morale.

handmadetoyalliancelogo1

Handmade toy businesses are just imagining things if they listen to anyone like the Handmade Toy Alliance. It’s not as if anyone like them is on its list of members.

The Times editorialists warn against “needless fears” that the law “could injure” smaller enterprises. Got that? Not only will they not be driven out of business, they won’t even be “injured”. So small enterprises from coast to coast are just imagining things if they plead desperately for places like the Times to notice that they have already closed down, or will have to do so in the foreseeable future, or have lost thousands of dollars in unsalable inventories. Motorbike dealerships around the country are just imagining things if they think they’re staring at massive losses from the inability to sell their products, even though news-side talent at the New York Times has in fact covered their story well — coverage which the editorial studiously ignores.

For as long as anyone can remember, the New York Times has unthinkingly taken its line on supposed consumer-safety issues from organized groups like Public Citizen and Consumers Union. In this case, the result of such reliance has been to render the nation’s leading newspaper a laughingstock.
Public domain image: Grandma’s Graphics, Ruth Mary Hallock.

(& welcome Virginia Postrel, Christopher Fountain, Patrick @ Popehat, Carter Wood/ShopFloor, Mike Cernovich, Katherine Mangu-Ward/Reason “Hit and Run”, Jonathan Adler @ Volokh Conspiracy, Memeorandum, Above the Law, Tim Sandefur, Mark Thompson/Donklephant, Alison Morris/Publisher’s Weekly Shelftalker blog, Jacob Grier, Amy Alkon/Advice Goddess, Joe Weisenthal/ClusterStock, Valerie Jacobsen/Bookroom Blog readers. And: Deputy Headmistress at Common Room, Faith in Truth, Amy Ridenour/National Center and NewsBusters, Charles Kuffler/Off the Kuff.)

And more: Forbes.com liked this piece and has now reprinted it in slightly altered form. And I’m particularly grateful to Robert Ambrogi/Legal Blog Watch for his generous coverage.

Tagged as: , , , , , , ,

{ 40 comments }

CPSIA and vintage books, cont’d: slicing the past

by Walter Olson on February 17, 2009

The article I wrote for City Journal Thursday on the legal fate of pre-1985 children’s books has been drawing all sorts of attention, and all I can acknowledge are a few of the highlights. Education expert Jay Greene and Darleen Click at Protein Wisdom are among those put in mind of Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451. “Of all the risks facing American children, old books must rank very, very low,” writes leading education blogger Joanne Jacobs. Will Benton: “Every time I learn something new about the CPSIA, I get more enraged.” Illinois blogger T. Varner notices an ad for a local thrift store saying it would no longer accept donations of a “very long list” of items including “children’s books published before 1985″; only later does it click. Hector Owen: “This is what happens when Congress passes these bloated bills that nobody reads, and the President signs them, and then we start to find out what was in there. Oh dear, what did they just do last week?” JDub at Ace of Spades: “Overlawyered has pretty much flooded the zone on this — I don’t want to simply link all of the things he’s got, so give him a look. … Go. Read. Be angry.” And Mark Bennett, of criminal law blog Defending People, gives it a mention in the course of hosting Blawg Review no. 199.
goldenrodpicturebook
If you have time to read only one post from the weekend on the topic of CPSIA and books, however, make it Common Room‘s. She discusses, among other topics, the narrowness of the “collectibles for adult use” exception, the extra-vulnerable status of vintage kids’ nature and science books, which go out of print quickly and are seldom reprinted, and the fate of ex-library versions, beloved by book buyers on budgets. She also confesses to a temptation to slice the gorgeous illustrations out of certain books, a practice likely to be encouraged by CPSIA, if only because 1) the illustrations often have monetary value and might benefit from the defense that on their own they are not a product intended for children’s use; 2) the mutilated book that remains will be a less risky thing to donate, circulate or sell, since it is the color illustrations that are thought to pose the prime risk of containing infinitesimal lead exposures.* (More: as part of another good roundup, she calls our attention to this excellent Valerie Jacobsen post on why “marketing vintage children’s books as ‘adult collectibles’ will work for some children’s books, but only for a few.”)

Sierra Highlands, who like Common Room includes some beguiling illustrations, writes:

….so long as Google Books and Gutenberg are out there, the old books won’t be gone completely, but it hurts to hear of the beautiful old editions going out with tomorrow’s trash. It really, really hurts. There’s something about the physical presence of an old book that links us to our ancestors and to a world where books were loved enough to be put into beautiful editions. When I pick up an old book, often shabby on the surface but well handled, well made, well-loved, quiet but rich in form and content, I feel connected to the Permanent Things in body as well as spirit.

anne-of-green-gables-cover1

The BookShopBlog owner’s removal of six boxes of older children’s books from her shelves, mentioned here, also started an Etsy thread. Another poster at the same location had an idea for a national read-in day of protest for vintage books on the last day of National Library Week, Apr. 18.

Also, I was linked by a resource page on Anne of Green Gables and her creator, L.M. Montgomery, which made my week all by itself. I’ve started a special tag for CPSIA and books, distinct from the general CPSIA tag.

*Just to clarify the legalities once more: CPSIA does not make it unlawful to own pre-1985 kids’ books, nor does it ban the sale of such books when, as is true for many millions of them, they contain no lead in their pigments. But resellers cannot be sure which do and which don’t, and the law exposes them to liability should they stock a book with lead even if the misstep was in good faith and even if (of course) no child is hurt. The CPSC’s guidance provides a conspicuous safe harbor for the sale of books printed after 1985.

Tagged as: , , ,

{ 3 comments }

Snopes and CPSIA

by Walter Olson on February 15, 2009

How wrong — and how seemingly unembarrassed about being wrong — is the popular urban-legends site? After I raised the question on Friday, reader Meredith Wright wrote the site and got a highly unsatisfactory response, which I’ll reprint here (and have also printed in comments):

Comment (MW): First of all, I LOVE your website, and usually find it well-sourced. But your inboxer article on CPSIA is just incorrect. CPSIA is a poorly written law (and apparently a poorly READ law – most of the representatives and senators who voted for it never bothered to read it – kind of like the PATRIOT Act), but it IS going to impact a LOT of people who shouldn’t have to suffer, mostly small business owners and LIBRARIES.

Go to Overlawyered.com and check it all out. I have no ax to grind here
(although my representative is Waxman, one of the morons who wrote this stupid bill) and just want you to take a look at the other side of the
issue. At the very least, your article should be labeled “undetermined” not “false.”

Kind regards,
Meredith Wright

And the response:

From: snopes.com [email redacted]
Subject: Re: snopes.com: Page Comment
To: Meredith Wright [email redacted]
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 6:43 PM

It’s covered in our FAQ at http://www.snopes.com/info/faq.asp

Many of the texts we discuss contain a mixture of truth, falsity, and exaggeration which cannot be accurately described by a single “True” or “False” rating. Therefore, an item’s status is generally based upon the single most important aspect of the text under discussion, which is summarized in the statement made after the “Claim:” heading at the top of the page. It is important to make note of the wording of that claim, since that is the statement to which the status applies.

Urban Legends Reference Pages

http://www.snopes.com


* * *

So [this is W.O., editorializing, now, not Snopes or Wright] it doesn’t matter how often people read the Snopes item and conclude that the alarms over resellers and CPSIA are unfounded, hysteria, far-fetched, etc. The posting was narrowly accurate when it came to refuting one particular false sub-rumor, and so there’s no need to apologize for, let alone correct, the dismissive tone and poorly informed opinionizing on prospects for enforcement that led many readers into a wider and more serious error, namely thinking that children’s resellers who don’t “blatantly take a cavalier attitude” about customer safety would have no trouble living with the law’s requirements. If you believed Snopes on that, you would have been grossly unprepared for the convulsions in the children’s resale business that began making headlines in recent days.

Incidentally, for those keeping score, the Snopes entry gets other facts about the law wrong too. For example, it announces that “children’s products made after [emphasis added] February 10, 2009″ face lead certification requirements. This was not true either before or after the CPSC’s 11th-hour stay of certification enforcement: it was and is the date of sale or distribution, not of manufacture, that triggers the requirements. A small maker or dealer relying on the Snopes piece might have concluded that its pre-2/10 stocks were not affected by the certification controversy — big, big mistake.

(Public domain image: Grandma’s Graphics, Margaret Tulloch).
More research next time please

Tagged as: , ,

{ 17 comments }

CPSIA and vintage books

by Walter Olson on February 10, 2009

As readers are aware, the Consumer Product Safety Commission yesterday advised thrift stores and other resellers and distributors of used goods to discard (unless they wished to test for lead or take other typically unpractical steps such as contacting manufacturers) children’s books printed before 1985 and a very wide range of other children’s products, including apparel and playthings.
boywithbook
According to a commenter at a very busy Etsy thread on the subject, stores are already beginning to act on this advice:

I just came back from my local thrift store with tears in my eyes! I watched as boxes and boxes of children’s books were thrown into the garbage! Today was the deadline and I just can’t believe it! Every book they had on the shelves prior to 1985 was destroyed! I managed to grab a 1967 edition of “The Outsiders” from the top of the box, but so many!

People who deal more systematically in children’s books for a livelihood now face unpleasant choices. From our comments section, Valerie Jacobsen:

We own a small, local used bookstore and have been selling used books on the Internet since 1995.

Last year we shipped over 4500 used books to nearly 50 countries. (Note that CPSIA not only regulates distribution and sale but export as well.)

Our bookstore is the sole means of income for our family, and we currently have over 7000 books catalogued. In our children’s department, 35% of our picture books and 65% of our chapter books were printed before 1985.

Many of our older children’s books have painted decorative titles and other cover embellishment, which decoration is an extremely small quantity and which may or may not contain over 600 ppm lead. (The limits for each accessible part or paint layer are going to 300 ppm in August and 100 ppm in 2011.)

We have read the legislation, called our representative, called our senator, contacted the CPSC (no answer), read all of the CPSC press releases, and contacted a lawyer. We still honestly have no idea what is legal to sell, but we cannot simply discard a wealth of our culture’s nineteenth and twentieth children’s literature over this.

And from the same commenter today, following up after the CPSC’s issuance of guidance to small businesses last night:

I wasn’t thrilled with the exception stating that we can sell pre-1985 children’s books as long as they are pricey vintage collectibles for adult collectors. Um, great, but most of our children’s books, even our older children’s books, are sold for children to read. And read them, they do.

We ran an audit in our bookstore today. We have about 7000 books catalogued. Of our children’s chapter books, about 65% are pre-1985. Of our children’s picture books, about 35% are pre-1985. Most of these sell for under $10 and are stocked as children’s reading.

As an ethical matter, I really can’t discard our cultural heritage just because the CPSC has decreed that books published through *1984* may or may not still form a legal part of the canon of children’s literature for our culture.

I was willing to resist the censorship of 1984 and the Fire Department of Fahrenheit 451 long before I became a bookseller, so I’d love to run a black market in quality children’s books–but at the same time it’s not like the CPSC has never destroyed a small, harmless company before. It’s a scary thing to know that what you are doing is a positive good for the community–and yet possibly, strangely illegal.

Also, I am comforted by no promises from Nord and Moore that are not clear consequences of CPSIA itself. The membership of the commission will probably be changed this year, and if Waxman gets much input into the new membership, we could end up with five first rate cuckoos.

To which commenter Carol Baicker-McKee responds:

Valerie, please, for the sake of children and history hang onto your books! I kept thinking this law would go away, but now I’m worried that an important part of our heritage is genuinely threatened. Many, many children’s books printed before 1985 are now out of print and do not exist still in a form that would make them easy to republish (printing plates are usually destroyed when a book goes out of print and older books did not have electronic versions). Many books, though of enduring value to children and social scientists, may not exist in conditions or simply don’t fall into categories that make them appealing to collectors, the one group besides packrats that I guess is still allowed to own them. Although organizations like the Gutenberg Project have been working to scan and preserve many older children’s books in electronic form, they can only target books that are no longer copyright protected, a very small portion of the children’s books printed since 1985.

If nothing happens to change this law soon, I promise I will spend whatever money and devote whatever space I can to buying up these older books. I’ll be happy to label myself a collector (and I’m subversive enough to leave the books lying around where kids might “accidentally” read them).

A “relabel everything as collectible” strategy is, however, of limited legal help to retailers, because the law provides that they are liable if they sell a product which will commonly be understood as destined for use by children, whether or not they label it as such.

Deputy Headmistress at Common Room, who has been a key CPSIA blogger, deals in second-hand books and has now pulled many of her listings off Amazon; she has a big roundup as well as this. She also points out, citing testing done by Jennifer Taggart, that color illustrations in some old children’s books do flunk the new and stringent rules set by CPSIA for lead content; this does not necessarily mean they pose any hazard to actual children, provided the children use the books for reading and visual enjoyment rather than as something to chew, lick, or devour holes through, Very-Hungry-Caterpillar style. There continues to be an extreme shortage (as in: zero) of cited instances of children in this country being in fact poisoned by the lead in old book illustrations.

Design Loft carefully examines some of the implications for libraries, fiscal and otherwise, of trying to CPSIA-proof pre-1985 holdings. For weeks now librarian and bookseller groups have been sounding the alarm about the law’s coverage of books: Library Journal, Publisher’s Weekly and earlier, and ZRecommends, the American Library Association and more (PDF), Rick Woldenberg. Perhaps this activism helped stimulate the CPSC’s “post-1985 = relatively safe” guidance, but that guidance has only served to underscore the corresponding message of “pre-1985 = not legally safe”.

More: Mark Riffey, Iain Murray, CEI “Open Market”. And the American Library Association, contrary to what was heard earlier, is now taking the position that the law does not apply to libraries unless it hears otherwise. I think at this point if I were them I would take that position too, wouldn’t you?

More: Reactions from Houston criminal defense blogger Mark Bennett at Defending People and again at Blawg Review #199, Carter Wood at NAM ShopFloor and again, David Foster at Chicago Boyz, Der Schweizer Narr (from Switzerland, in German), The Anchoress, Todd Seavey, Open Your Ears and Eyes, Blackadder’s Lair, John Holbo/Crooked Timber, 5 Kids and a Dog, International House of Bacon (CPSIA “the single worst piece of regulation in my lifetime”), Vivian Zabel/Brain Cells and Bubble Wrap, She’s Right, Joey and Aleethea, Dewey’s Treehouse, Sherry/Semicolon Blog, and Classic Housewife.

Tagged as: , , ,

{ 52 comments }

CPSIA: fifty stars and an asterisk

by Walter Olson on February 8, 2009

Fifty glimpses of the law and its impact, plus one at the end for D.C:

Hawaii: Kailua doll shop closes despite CPSC enforcement stay (w/video); Honolulu Honey Baby shakes leis and hula skirts in dismay;
Alaska: “Why you should care about CPSIA, and what you can do about it”.
Washington: Don’t miss this helmet anecdote from Whitman County;
Oregon: Milagros Boutique of Portland: “One of our local vendors has decided to throw in the towel rather than wait and see if the CPSIA is amended.”
California: Thanks to stay, Whimsical Walney will close down only temporarily, not permanently;
quiltflagsmall
Utah: “We will have to lock our doors and file for bankruptcy,” said Shauna Sloan, founder of Utah-based children’s resale chain Kid to Kid. Glory Quilts: “My longest blog post ever — and the most angry“;

Colorado: Emily Werner: “Today, I have diaper making to do. But I also am ready to stuff envelopes“;
Idaho: Squares of Flair, from Eagle, is on the Endangered Whimsy list. And if you’re thinking of making something bulky for children, like a furniture line, have you considered that none of the nation’s lead testing labs are anywhere near Idaho?
Nevada: Let’s hope Sen. Harry Reid is listening to constituent Molly Orr;

Wyoming: For Kooky Dolls it’s a distinctly non-kooky issue;
Montana: Mark Riffey’s Business is Personal (Rescue Marketing) has helped focus blog attention;
Arizona: “No way” Other Mothers resale stores “can be completely compliant”;
New Mexico: Fashion Incubator and National Bankruptcy Day;

quilt2

Oklahoma: Farewell jingle dresses, powwow dance clothes, buckskin leggings, concho belts and other Native American celebratory kids’ gear;
Texas: Distress sale at My Pink Zebra Boutique in Katy;
Kansas: Owner of Baxter Springs company that makes organic nursing pillows doesn’t think threat of being “hauled off to prison” is very constructive;
Nebraska: Omaha-connected Baby Leather Moks is on Endangered Whimsy list;
North Dakota: Sunrise Hill Decor, making blocks for play or display, is member of the Handmade Toy Alliance;
South Dakota: Question after our own heart: what would Laura Ingalls Wilder have thought of this law?

Iowa: I may know there are no phthalates or lead in that whimsical chenille baby bib, and you may know it, but have you documented it to the satisfaction of the wary retailer’s lawyers?
Minnesota: Things seem to be going great, with your product line featured on the Martha Stewart show. And then this happens (auto-plays video);
Missouri: Fleece scarves, going too cheap;
Illinois: List-keeping in Naperville. Oprah, please help!
Wisconsin: Owner of Jacobsen Books in Clinton is also worried about small-run adaptive devices used by special needs children;
Indiana: Rebecca Holloway gives ‘em a deserved slamming; doll outfits and hair bows;

Ohio: Nicer-than-mass-produced diaper covers; Toledo Physical Education Supply takes a hit;
quilt3
Michigan: Brandi Pahl wonders: What are they thinking?; NARTS efforts couldn’t save Ionia resale store;
Arkansas: Closing of A Kidd’s Dream consignment shop in Conway doesn’t seem to have done much to change Sen. Mark Pryor’s mind;
Louisiana: The stay: “Hope but no solution“, kids’ Mardi Gras masks;
Mississippi: Sen. Roger Wicker is co-sponsoring DeMint reform bill;
Alabama: About that stay: “Read the fine print“; at least the pink whale got adopted;
Florida: “Many stores have fallen for the false report from the media that consignment stores are exempt.”
Georgia: Thank you, 11 Alive News, for listening to consignment sellers;

Tennessee: eBay seamstresses and Spanish baby gift sellers watching with concern;
South Carolina: Rock and mineral kits: do not eat contents unless you are at least 12 years of age;
North Carolina: Quilt Baby appeals to reason;
Kentucky: Menace of soft texture block set probably overrated;

quilt4

Maine: Any reform will come too late for Farmington’s Blessed Baby Boutique, shut down last weekend;
New Hampshire: As Commerce Secretary, d’you think Sen. Gregg could help?
Massachusetts: Rob Wilson of Ashland, importer of earth-friendly toys, has done much to spread the word, and impact on libraries noted in Newburyport;
Vermont: “Somewhere in the neighborhood of 95 percent of the merchants on our site would have to shut down,” says Michael Secore of Craftsbury Kids, with co-owner Cecilia Leibovitz a major spreader of word about the law, ditto Barre’s Polkadot Patch;
Rhode Island: Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed “don’t seem terribly concerned“.
Connecticut: Stamford maker faces $400 testing bill for each $360 run of bibs and napkins, while paperback exchange owner in Bethel terms application of law “insane“;

New York: Issue has captured attention of book publishers, if not of certain newspaper publishers;
New Jersey: You made play food for kids out of felt? No wonder Rep. Waxman is so worried they’ll eat it!
Delaware: Wilmington store Yo-Yo Joe’s is a member of the Handmade Toy Alliance;
Pennsylvania: Going out on a limb, Somerset librarian contends most kids are old enough to know not to put the books in their mouths;
Maryland: The Baltimore Etsy Street Team is on the wing;
West Virginia: Project Linus, which does great charity work in the donation of quilts and blankets, puts on a brave face but its friends are worried;

Virginia: Back away from that ribbon hair bow slowly, now, and we’ll just wait for the hazmat team to arrive;

*District of Columbia: Almost forgot Washington, D.C.! Well, in Washington, D.C., it’s easy to get them to pay attention to problems like these. For example, less than a month ago, the offices of Reps. Henry Waxman and Bobby Rush were instructing colleagues that if they get calls from constituents “who believe they may be adversely impacted by the new law,” it was because the constituents had fallen victim to “confusion” and “inaccurate reporting”. The most important advocacy group behind the law, the implacable Public Citizen, has launched a new campaign to defend it from critics; it was PC’s David Arkush who in December notoriously assailed (scroll to #1) “hysteria” about the law on the part of crafters and small businesses, broadly hinting that they were serving as dupes and stooges of Big Toy interests — perish the thought that they might have figured the issue out on their own! Trial-lawyer-defense groups like the misnamed Center for Justice and Democracy (along with their friends) chimed in with the thought that critics of the law needed to “grow up” (no, don’t bother commenting). CPSC Commissioner Thomas Moore, hewing to a similar line, blames the ongoing ruckus on “orchestrated campaigns to undermine the Act” that “are sowing the seeds of confusion that are upsetting so many small businesses.” Lobbyists and trade associations for mass-production importers and merchandisers are eager to prove their cooperation with the powers that be: “We were early proponents of mandatory laws to require toy testing,” said a Toy Industry Association spokesman the other day.

Washington, D.C. always does so well at listening to the rest of the country.

Tagged as: , , , , , ,

{ 23 comments }

CPSIA: What will be enforced?

by Walter Olson on February 7, 2009


To cap a week of bewilderingly rapid developments, the Consumer Product Safety Commission yesterday announced new guidelines somewhat widening the scope of products that it will consider presumptively lawful to sell (unless a merchant is actually on notice that they contain hazards) when the law’s major provisions take effect three days from now, on Tuesday, Feb. 10. From a quick once-over — and all this is subject to correction by lawyers expert in the matter — the new guidelines appear most useful for the children’s publishing business and for makers of children’s garments and electronics, although fraught with difficult problems even for them; they do little to help many other businesses and small manufacturers affected by the law, and are most ominous as regards two major constituencies affected by the act, resale stores and public libraries.

First, a bit of background. In a February 4 post, “The Blame Game“, Rick Woldenberg has laid out the “noose-like” tightness with which the drafters of the CPSIA sought to prevent the CPSC from granting exemptions from the standards; they also provided that liability under the law would not be suspended just because a request for exemption was under consideration. In short, the CPSIA is purposely drafted to place many advantages in the hands of consumer groups or other litigants who might wish to challenge an exemption in court. Since the CPSC cannot be sure of having the last word — its attempt to carve out an exemption for pre-Feb. 10 phthalate inventories was just struck down — it would be incautious for producers or retailers to rely overmuch on its policy pronouncements, especially since, while it obviously has some discretion over its own enforcement efforts, it cannot prevent others (like state attorneys general) from bringing their own actions. One of those state AGs, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, just issued a press release crowing over the consumer groups’ phthalate victory and warning retailers, thrift stores presumably included, that “My office will take whatever steps are necessary [emphasis added] to ensure this phthalate ban is enforced.” (Note that while the phthalate ban was often argued for on the basis of the “precautionary principle” — even if no actual harm to humans has been proved, shouldn’t we alter the formulas for making the items to be safe rather than sorry? — Blumenthal & co. now seek to redefine millions of existing playthings in American homes as “toxic toys”.) It should be noted that private activist and lawyer groups often shop potential cases to state AGs’ offices, and in turn are made monetary beneficiaries of resulting fines and settlements (more on California’s CEH here).

In any event, the CPSC now edges into daring and legally uncharted territory by declaring that it will presumptively excuse not just untreated beige cotton, wool and other materials, but also dyed fabrics, as well as certain innocuous varieties of trim. This is of help to garment makers, who will still of course face possible legal exposure on their plastic buttons, metal snaps, and other nonfabric components. Electronics makers will benefit because the commission will adopt a more lenient view of when components are inaccessible, that is, not reachable by a child even after an effort to smash and break the object. Certain metals and alloys known not to contain lead will also be listed as presumptively safe. Finally, “ordinary” children’s books (it is not clear whether books with staples qualify) will be presumptively lawful if published since 1985.

Published since when?

That’s right, since 1985. It seems before that year some books were printed with lead-containing inks. None of the discussion I’ve seen of the issue seems to report that any American child has ever been injured by eating the ink in books. But the implication is pretty clear for books published before 1985: unless you’d care to put them through testing, title by title and edition by edition, it’s now legally safer to throw ‘em out. One might propose vast bonfires in public squares, if not for the fear of violating air quality regulations.

It is not unusual for small independent booksellers to have in inventory still-unsold books of pre-1985 vintage. Perhaps these can be saved from landfills through the use of stickers reading, “Sold as a collectible only — under no account to be used by persons under 12″, as sellers of, say, vintage plastic dolls may do. But that doesn’t solve the problem for libraries. Their holdings include millions of pre-1985 children’s books, and if they stock them in children’s sections and allow them to be checked out at children’s request, they can’t very well play the “adult collectible” card. Beyond that, book sales are a major source of financial support for libraries, and inevitably include many of those ultra-terrifying, handle-with-lab-gloves pre-1985 children’s books.

Finally, thrift and resale stores remain in an unenviable position. Relatively few of the children’s goods they sell are composed entirely of materials on the hastily-assembled safe list. Most of the garments have snaps, zippers or plastic buttons; most of the sports items, board games and action toys have metal, vinyl or plastic components that might possibly (even if they probably do not) contain some admixture of lead or phthalates; who knows whether the jigsaw puzzles or spiral-bound art pads were printed before 1985, or, for that matter, would count as a “book”? Don’t even ask about bikes, trikes, strollers, car seats, backpacks, or things with rhinestones. And now you’ve got Richard Blumenthal and his allies vowing to “take whatever steps are necessary” — armed with those $100,000 penalties and those jail terms — against anyone who sells or resells items that a short time ago were a normal and, so far as anyone has been able to prove, harmless part of childhood.

Further discussion from Common Room (with particular attention to pre-1985 books: “I think the CPSC just turned my library into contraband. Or something.”) and Ian at Musings of a Catholic Bookstore. Rumor has it that CPSC will issue further guidance on thrift stores and resellers on or before Tuesday, but as Common Room cautions, “There’s a Difference Between a Policy and a Law“.

P.S. Note, incidentally, that the phthalate ban applies to a different (and generally narrower) range of products than does the lead ban: in particular, playthings and child care items. Peas and Bananas has reprinted the details (& welcome Publisher’s Weekly readers).

Public domain image: Grandma’s Graphics, Mabel Betsy Hill.

Tagged as: , , , , ,

{ 16 comments }

CPSIA chronicles, February 6

by Walter Olson on February 6, 2009

A Wall Street Journal editorial this morning:

The runaway train that is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is heading toward a collision next Tuesday. … The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has voted to delay the requirements for one year but this will have little practical impact: The lead standards still apply and retailers don’t want to carry uncertified products lest they become targets of plaintiffs attorneys and state attorneys general. … Senator Jim DeMint is planning to offer an amendment to the stimulus package to [introduce some rationality into the law], though getting support for it will be a taller order.

Advocates of a maximally stringent CPSIA on Capitol Hill and among purported consumer groups won two victories yesterday. In one, a New York federal court struck down an interpretation by the CPSC that would have banned only the manufacture or importation, and not the sale, of children’s products containing certain phthalates (chemicals used in softening plastics) as of Feb. 10. The effect of that policy would have been to allow businesses to sell off old inventories until they were gone. The judge ruled that the law by its terms clearly bans sale as well, which means existing toy inventories either not free of the chemicals, or which cannot be practicably tested to disprove their presence, will presumably become valueless as of next Tuesday and headed for landfills. “It won’t be hard for them” (makers of children’s goods) to comply, said attorney Aaron Colangelo of the Natural Resources Defense Council, and one must assume Mr. Colangelo is willing to take the risk of becoming a laughingstock if that prediction doesn’t pan out. In the other ruling, the CPSC turned down an emergency request to suspend the law’s operation for six months.

In other news, the New York Times finally covered CPSIA yesterday. Well, actually, it only covered one sub-sub-category of the CPSIA catastrophe, the effective ban on kids’ dirt bikes, and only on its automotive blog Wheels rather than in the newspaper proper. But you have to start somewhere. And this morning it ran a brief AP item presenting the court decision on phthalates from the consumer groups’ point of view. As I’ve mentioned, the Times sets the tone for news coverage at many other news organizations, and it has still not seen fit to inform its readers that the law poses any problem whatsoever for crafters, small apparel makers, publishers of children’s books, libraries, resale and thrift stores, or the makers of board games, comic books, musical instruments, religious goods, hair scrunches, or ballpoint pens. Oh, except for that blog item on dirt bikes.

To pass from the ridiculous to the sublime, Lissa Harris has another great piece of reporting in the Boston Phoenix (“Congress’s War on Toys”), detailing the effects of the law — stay or no stay — on an importer of eco-friendly handicrafted European playthings, “hippy knitters in Somerville”, and a kids’ boutique in Jamaica Plain, among others.

New trade associations are springing up, like the recently formed “CPSC Legwear Coalition,” whose members felt it necessary to declare in a recent press release that “lead is not commonly used in legwear manufacturing.”

Ashland, Mass. toy importer Rob Wilson says

the consumer groups have lost a lot of credibility among the indie artisans, organic advocates, and environmentalists that should have been their biggest supporters on children’s safety.

Says Wilson: “I’m canceling my Consumer Reports subscription.”

Heartkeeper Common Room continues her great commentary with critiques of the reports that ran in CNNMoney.com and USA Today, as well as of a more recent (very belated and inadequate) Associated Press gesture toward reporting the story:

The AP says the law is applauded by parents and consumer advocates and jeered by industry — I am a parent, not in the industry, and I am jeering.

Great Gravy. [Sen. Mark] Pryor says it’s all [CPSC Acting Chairwoman Nancy] Nord’s fault because she had, like, five or six months and he doesn’t know what else she’s been doing. There is no mention of the fact that Congress also put all the nation’s swimming pools under CPSC jurisdiction, Nord says she’s met every deadline imposed by Congress, and there was a new gasoline burn prevention act they had to regulate, nor does the AP note that the Commission is seriously, and deliberately, undermanned by Congress and underfunded as well.

There’s also new coverage on NPR “Morning Edition” and the Des Moines Register.

Tagged as: , ,

{ 15 comments }

CPSIA: The children’s product safety “crisis” that wasn’t

by Walter Olson on February 4, 2009

Rick Woldenberg has been looking into it:

It’s certainly true that children have been checking books out of libraries for many, many years with only paper cuts to show for their reckless behavior. And thrift stores have sold children’s clothing and strollers for years without incident, but apparently no one knew the “dangers” that lurked within. Indeed, all of these items have been considered safe until February 10, when magically they will become unsafe unless proven otherwise.

According to reports from the field, zippers and snaps on kids’ garments are among the components most likely to flunk the new CPSIA standards. In all probability, millions of existing, already sold garments would flunk for similar reasons. Yet have CPSIA advocates pointed to even a single instance in which an American child has been poisoned by garment zippers or snaps? Could this be because kids do not as a rule detach and eat zippers and snaps? “Why aren’t we seeing many claims of injury from all the dangerous children’s products still legally available in the market?” Woldenberg asks. “Shouldn’t we be seeing outrageous injury statistics right now, currently”?

To put it differently, advocates seem to have taken a few genuine instances of injury from distinctive, atypical products (lead jewelry, powerful ball magnets) and used them to manufacture an imaginary crisis in the safety of children’s products generally. But there was never any general crisis of children’s product safety.

Following up, as part of a more general critique of CPSIA advocates’ misrepresentations — which should be read in its entirety, as it makes many other valuable points — Woldenberg analyzes the purportedly alarming data on product recalls involving children (Excel spreadsheet). Separately, Wacky Hermit has been looking at the recall figures as well. She concludes:

Of the 63 recalls that would have been prevented by CPSIA, only 1 resulted in an injury (a child ingested lead paint from a crib and had elevated blood levels of lead). This means that had CPSIA been in place for 2008, one child would have been helped.*

If we’re going to extrapolate one or a handful of injuries into a supposed national crisis, we might as well deduce a “children’s bathing crisis” from a bathtub drowning, a “children’s kitchen crisis” from a stovetop scalding or a “children’s transportation crisis” from a highway smashup. Common Room has a wrap-up which also should be read in full:

the majority of recalls (by an astronomical number) are not because a item has actually harmed anybody, but because the CPSC or the company determine that perhaps a particular item might possibly harm a child- and, while it flies against our intuitive, emotional reaction to the news that an item has lead, not all lead products are the same. The lead in a kid’s mini-bike tire valve is not as dangerous as the lead in paint on a toddler’s block. … The CPSIA treats real, imagined, and nonexistent threats exactly the same, and that is not sound policy.

*More: Jennifer Taggart writes to say that looking at past recalls does not make it possible to assess the law’s full effect since most items covered by CPSIA had not been subject to federal regulation (except under general catchall provisions). So the generalization quoted above should probably have included some limiting language to that effect.

Tagged as: , , , , ,

{ 4 comments }

Kids’ empty shelves: CPSIA continued

by Walter Olson on January 14, 2009

Raggedy Andy pillow fight

Much of the alarm over the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), the federal law enacted last year in response to panics over Chinese toys with lead paint and the phthalates found in plastic, has focused on the effect it will have on toys and related kids’ products, driving many of them from the market because it is too costly for handcrafters and small-run manufacturers to pay for the testing of every lot. (One protest site is entitled National Bankruptcy Day, after Feb. 10, the day the law is set to go into effect.) But the law is much wider in application than that. It also applies to a sweeping array of children’s goods including clothing, bedding, Scouting patches, and countless other fabric and textile goods for kids’ use; paper goods, school supplies, homeschooling kits, as well as library books and audiobooks, board games, baseball cards, and the like; outdoor gear, bikes, backpacks, telescopes and sporting equipment; home furnishings when marketed for use in kids’ rooms; and much more.

Endangered Whimsy is “a gallery of handmade products endangered by the CPSIA”. Just Add Charm has a CPSIA Awareness Series with other examples of products that could soon be withdrawn. There’s at least one Flickr group, too.

And that just scratches the surface. A familiar high point of many ethnic and heritage festivals is the children’s dance or ceremonial troupe in traditional costume. Yet handcrafted kids’ clothing, especially if intricate and including numerous components (beads, pendants, lace inserts, etc.) is likely to be highly expensive to test in compliance with the law. The same applies to the moccasins, buckskins, and dance gear that are cherished traditions for many Native American kids at powwows.

Some of the local press has been paying attention in recent days and the issue is beginning to reach the national press as well. The Wall Street Journal editorializes today. That attention has come only after weeks of mounting outrage at the grass-roots level, which as John Tozzi at Business Week has noted, has offered an emblematic example of the role of the new social media in giving voice to public concerns: besides alarm-raising at hundreds of blogs and forums (including Etsy and eBay), there’s been a torrent of Twitter discussion, a Ning group, YouTube, and nine Facebook groups so far. Even six month old babies are upset, or so their relatives say.

The initial reaction of many small businesspeople was to ask for as slight a modification in the law as they could, but it has become apparent that the law’s unreasonableness is across-the-board and systematic. Rick Woldenberg explains why a maze of exemptions and proliferation of categories would itself prove highly onerous, perhaps unworkable, for small businesses. Sarah at Just Add Charm writes, “it seems to me that a repeal of the CPSIA may be a better solution than trying to amend it to make it workable”. More on that idea here. I agree. Congress must repeal this bad law.

Tagged as: , ,

{ 9 comments }

CPSIA: furor builds over toyless shelves

by Walter Olson on January 11, 2009

In our previous posts about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), the federal law passed by Congress last year in the wake of the panic over Chinese toys with lead paint, we noted that it threatened to drive out of business a lot of small makers of wooden toys and other childrens’ products who cannot afford to spend thousands of dollars per lot to confirm the absence of lead paint (or phthalates, another banned substance) in their wares. A group called Handmade Toy Alliance has formed to call attention to the law’s burden on small manufacturers, and offers further detail at its website.

As reports in the last week make clear, however, a second economic disaster is also looming: thrift and secondhand stores around the country sell a large volume of clothing, toys and other items meant for use by those under 12, and are now exposed to stringent liability under the law. “The reality is that all this stuff will be dumped in the landfill,” predicted Adele Meyer, executive director of the National Association of Resale and Thrift Shops. Among the biggest losers if stores stop selling secondhand kids’ items: poorer parents who would have trouble dressing a growing family if they had to buy, say, winter coats new for $30 rather than used for $5 or $10. The regs are scheduled to take effect Feb. 10.

On January 8, as press coverage mounted, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) rushed out a supposed clarification of the regulations: thrift shops, eBay sellers and other second-hand retailers would not be compelled to institute testing programs on all items sold, the way manufacturers would. But the commission made clear that if the stores do wind up selling any secondhand products containing the substances — phthalates, for example, are often found in bendy plastics — they face both criminal liability and civil fines (which run up to $100,000). It isn’t required that the store know or should have known that a pre-2009 item was in violation, and of course it isn’t required that anyone be harmed by the good (the entire episode has gone on with a near-total absence of any showing that actual kids had been harmed by the products swept from American shelves).

None of which seems to faze some advocates of the new measure. At Law and More, Jane Genova quotes Sue Gunderson, executive director of an anti-lead-paint group called ClearCorps:

What thrift stores seem to be requesting [in Gunderson's view] is for the right to expose children to health and safety hazards. “Let’s get our priorities straight,” she insists. She goes on to pose this rhetorical question: “Mmmmmm, do we want cheap, second-hand toys that could damage children?” She frames this issue as a “business” one which the thrift-store industry will have to solve just as will every other business impacted by the new act.

If you think this is all too crazy to actually be happening, wait until you read the Boston Phoenix’s piece on the law’s threat to libraries:

“We are very busy trying to come up with a way to make it not apply to libraries,” said [Emily] Sheketoff [associate executive director of the American Library Association]. But unless she succeeds in lobbying Capitol Hill for an exemption, she believes libraries have two choices under the CPSIA: “Either they take all the children’s books off the shelves,” she says, “or they ban children from the library.”

Tagged as: , , , , ,

{ 8 comments }

Next Entries →