I would like to say how disappointed I am in this new law. Many families are struggling to survive, and this law takes away the option of buying clothing, toys, and books used for their children.
I know we wouldn't have had a nice Christmas this year if it hadn't been for me hunting down clothing, toys, books, and other assorted items at various second hand shops. I spent a fraction of what I would have new, and I wouldn't have been able to afford it had I done it with new items.
To the families struggling day in and day out to make bills, having to replace a worn out pair of jeans at $15 each is out of the question. Brand new books are sometimes as much as $10 for a paperback. New toys? Hardly affordable, even during the holidays and birthdays.
This law heavily effects not only the purchasing power of the American family, but also the jobs of the people who work in stores that won't be able to afford the cost of testing items.
I urge you to reclarify this new bill to only effect goods manufactured after February 2009, and to only effect the manufacturers, who should be solely responsible for the costs of testing their own goods.
Please, listen to America on this one.
I found a way to write to my representatives in Congress about the new law that is passing. The above is what I wrote to them. I urge everyone who is upset with the law to do the same.
For those who don't know what I am talking about, a new law passed that goes into effect February 10th, 2009. It states that ALL items sold geared towards kids 12 and under (clothing, media, toys, etc) must be tested for lead before it is allowed to be sold.
Because of the wording, "distribution", it could even effect libraries. Most second hand shops are opting to stop carrying items for children, because they can't afford the hefty cost of having each item tested. Amazon is already alerting people that items that do not comply will not be allowed to be sold. eBay will likely be doing the same shortly.
To find your representatives, click here.
I hope this law is re-worded significantly, and soon. I have no problems with having items tested for lead- I think they should be! But, I think it should pertain to new items manufactured, and that the manufacturer should be left holding the cost of testing the items before they hit store shelves.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 45
The tests are costly- upwards of $50,000 to have a private company come in and test your existing supply of items.
Because of the high costs, most second hand stores are opting to not sell children's items anymore- books, clothing, toys, movies, shoes, etc.
Anything made for a 12 year old or under has to be tested- and not by the manufacturer, but by the store. That means when something is bought at Target, it's been tested to say "Hey, this is safe", but then 6 months go by, and it gets donated to charity, then that charity has to foot the bill to test it again, because it's being resold.
A lot of stores are shutting down- small childrens stores, non-chain stores, consignment shops that specialize in childrens items, because they can't afford the cost of getting things continously tested.
The idea is that we'll be getting lead out of the system, which is good. But, the broad wording in the law makes it as wide reaching as donating items to charity, selling items online, selling items second hand in stores, and possibly even libraries, because they use the word distribution instead of sale.
If the law is going through as it's worded right now, stores with any merchandise untested as of February 10th are required to permenetly dispose of the items- by burning or putting them in a landfill.
If your child were to be damaged by a product that contains lead or melamine, would you think the government should have protected you?
Following this law has been a pain for retailers of new products. I know we had a few arguments over it at work because of the impact on advertising.
There is no easy fix to the situation we have gotten into with importing so much from China.
That said, I don't think politicians always come up with the best solutions.
With this law, I expect to see stores raising the costs of the items they sell geared towards children, which I think is justifiable considering the cost of testing all the items.
However, as I said in my letter, people who can't afford the prices of new clothing as it is NOW, certainly won't be able to after the bill goes into effect, and the prices rise.
Hitting second hand shops is going to effect thousands of people in your community. In my community. In every community. I have 3 kids. My husband makes a decent living- we're not rich. Heck, we're barely scraping into the lower-middle class level.
The way I get our budget working, is by stretching the dollars I have to the point of breaking them. And that's coming from a family that right now, can afford to pay our bills.
You take the families who have lost jobs, who have taken big pay cuts, who got laid off, who can't meet their day to day living bills, who don't have help, and you are looking at kids who come to school in clothing too small, or worn out, or shoes that are too large, or have holes worn in them, or who don't have a winter coat, or who have to wear a t-shirt all the time because they couldn't afford to buy them brand new sweat shirts and long sleeved shirts.
This isn't about the uproar over toys or candy. It's about being able to provide what you can for your family.
I've already setn a letter and signed numerous petitions.
This law has been passed and is going to go into place. When we were "fighting" at work, I said that we should just stop selling children's products. It has been a month since I read the parts of the full law as they impact my job, but I would think that eventually used toys would not need to be tested...because if sold in 2009 or after, they would have been certified.
I grew up wearing second-hand clothing...and after the first baby, my three daughters had lots of hand-me-downs and garage sale finds.
So the rock and the hard spot is this:
Who cares if poor people's kids have brain damage from lead because they buy used toys?
Who cares if poor people's kids have liver damage from melamine in their toothpaste?
No government official is going to sign up for that one!
Not saying the bill that has passed and will be enforced doesn't need work...
I think children's brain development is most important - or is lead not all that bad and this is over reacting ???
Or is it just better to be safe ???
Or is lead really bad but most parents will just keep it around their tots because it looks pretty and they don't know any better ???
My point, and the point many others have, is that we've all been safe with the items until now- recalled items are taken off the shelves, so why does everything now have to be removed?
You're making it sound like I'm giving my kids cancer by dressing them in cheap second hand clothing. That's not the case, and you know it.
The toys? Well yeah, I think they should be tested. But clothing? Come on. That's over board.
Have we been safe??? Or safe enough???
For all the times my feet were washed with LEADED gasoline, as a tot (to get the road tar off - I was always barefoot), I don't know if the lead in my things could compete.
It's all very confusing.
(I'll blame lead for my not being able to do math)
Another of those 'neither side is exactly right or exactly wrong' - And I can see both sides of this debate.
Way back when the food coloring agents were found harmful, there should have been something put in place to stop us being where we are today. But alas, a lot of things should have been put in place looooonnnngggg ago to prevent us being where we are today in numerous instances.
*sigh* as nothing was done, we ARE where we ARE today - and how best to fix? That is the $64 million dollar question.
Yes, we want our children safe. We also do not want to see prices raise or thrift stores (my most favoritest stores in the world!!!) go out of business. And how about the Salvation Army, Good Will, Women's Shelter Resale Shops, and even Habit for Humanity Resale Stores???? These all use 'recylced' items to help those in need.
I recently read that KB Toys went bankrupt - weren't they one of the biggest abusers of this lead thing a year ago - and really shouldn't the burden fall on the seller to test these items? Or at the very least have the burden fall on the countries exporting the items.
Why does it all fall to the purchaser? I like to be an informed shopper and like to buy healthy items - and am well aware of 'let the buyer beware' - but when is some of this going to 'trickle' 'uptrickle'? back to the persons making the bad product to begin with?
And I'm sorry but I see this law as somewhere needed some sort of 'grandfather' law for those items already in thrift stores - that is where maybe the purchaser need to be more aware and more careful - but I don't want to see these go out of business.
Just my opinion, such as it is.
Just sad-I want my kids to be safe as well but 38 years ago I grew up in Thrift clothes and I am fine. I just cannot afford brand new clothes, I don't even get them for me! Now, kids clothes are gonna be higher priced and with a 4 year old your talking new clothes every season and that is crazy! Knowing too that all those clothes are being thrown out kills me! I can almost bet that maybe 1 out of 100 clothes might be affected and that's a big might!
Better late then never, but gosh !!!
It does offend me greatly to think of all that stuff going into the landfill for a couple reasons...
Please read up on this, folks - then write to your Congressional Representative, Senators, the CPSC, the news media - help get the word out. This is wrong, and America cannot afford it right now.
Don't we hate China for that?