<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CPSIA: Confusion run amok</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-confusion-run-amok/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-confusion-run-amok/</link>
	<description>How to start a clothing line or run the one you have, better.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:23:51 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: National Bankruptcy Day &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Stop hurting the cause!</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-confusion-run-amok/comment-page-1/#comment-11885</link>
		<dc:creator>National Bankruptcy Day &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Stop hurting the cause!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:39:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=2572#comment-11885</guid>
		<description>[...] Previous entries in this series: New product safety regulations that affect all manufacturers CPSIA Requirements National Bankruptcy Day CPSIA: Unit vs Component Testing CPSIA: What must be tested Up, up and away… CPSIA: Confusion run amok [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Previous entries in this series: New product safety regulations that affect all manufacturers CPSIA Requirements National Bankruptcy Day CPSIA: Unit vs Component Testing CPSIA: What must be tested Up, up and away… CPSIA: Confusion run amok [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kurt</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-confusion-run-amok/comment-page-1/#comment-11883</link>
		<dc:creator>kurt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:49:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=2572#comment-11883</guid>
		<description>http://wahmsolutions.com/blog/?p=37

Check this link out.  A congressional subcommittee is having a meeting next wed on this topic.
So you should hurry and contact your congress people especially is they are on the committee</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://wahmsolutions.com/blog/?p=37" rel="nofollow">http://wahmsolutions.com/blog/?p=37</a></p>
<p>Check this link out.  A congressional subcommittee is having a meeting next wed on this topic.<br />
So you should hurry and contact your congress people especially is they are on the committee</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kurt</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-confusion-run-amok/comment-page-1/#comment-11881</link>
		<dc:creator>Kurt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=2572#comment-11881</guid>
		<description>This is article shows one reason why this legislation is so popular:  http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-25-congress-phthalate-ban_N.htm?POE=click-refer

At least folks should see both sides of issues: http://www.phthalates.org/whatare/index.asp</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is article shows one reason why this legislation is so popular:  <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-25-congress-phthalate-ban_N.htm?POE=click-refer" rel="nofollow">http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-25-congress-phthalate-ban_N.htm?POE=click-refer</a></p>
<p>At least folks should see both sides of issues: <a href="http://www.phthalates.org/whatare/index.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.phthalates.org/whatare/index.asp</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terrie</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-confusion-run-amok/comment-page-1/#comment-11873</link>
		<dc:creator>Terrie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:02:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=2572#comment-11873</guid>
		<description>Note: I am a consumer and not a designer or manufacture.  I read the wonderful post that Kathleen does to educate myself and to be entertained.  Her view point and opions expand my knowledge (and make me laugh) and I greatly appreciate that.  What that means is I am not educated in this field…so these are just opinion.

I am a mother of two very young children and had to throw away several hundred dollars worth of toys during the lead recall.  My group of friends were similarly inconvienced.  We worried, we researched, we talked to each other, and we got angry over our misplaced trust in the toy manufactures.  It was all very time consuming and unnecessary.

Having said that… it seems unacceptable to impose standards out of fear and not based on true necessity.  Children under 8 are likely to put things in their mouth, but as a grown woman I tend to reserve my mouth for eating too much and talking too much.  I do not chew on zipper pulls.  These standards seem reactionary and without true merit or foundation.  Regulations need to be in place to protect people from unknown hazards, but they should be well thought out and not unnecessarily burdensome.  The part I find interesting is the lack of knowledge that these regulations exist among those they are meant to protect.  I have been educating my friends about them since the first post and their existence was a surprise to everyone I know.  The ramifications of this are disproportional to the threat these hazards pose to our society.

I wish you all the best in your endeavors and would like to help, but I am not certain how.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Note: I am a consumer and not a designer or manufacture.  I read the wonderful post that Kathleen does to educate myself and to be entertained.  Her view point and opions expand my knowledge (and make me laugh) and I greatly appreciate that.  What that means is I am not educated in this field…so these are just opinion.</p>
<p>I am a mother of two very young children and had to throw away several hundred dollars worth of toys during the lead recall.  My group of friends were similarly inconvienced.  We worried, we researched, we talked to each other, and we got angry over our misplaced trust in the toy manufactures.  It was all very time consuming and unnecessary.</p>
<p>Having said that… it seems unacceptable to impose standards out of fear and not based on true necessity.  Children under 8 are likely to put things in their mouth, but as a grown woman I tend to reserve my mouth for eating too much and talking too much.  I do not chew on zipper pulls.  These standards seem reactionary and without true merit or foundation.  Regulations need to be in place to protect people from unknown hazards, but they should be well thought out and not unnecessarily burdensome.  The part I find interesting is the lack of knowledge that these regulations exist among those they are meant to protect.  I have been educating my friends about them since the first post and their existence was a surprise to everyone I know.  The ramifications of this are disproportional to the threat these hazards pose to our society.</p>
<p>I wish you all the best in your endeavors and would like to help, but I am not certain how.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kaaren Hoback</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-confusion-run-amok/comment-page-1/#comment-11869</link>
		<dc:creator>Kaaren Hoback</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:56:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=2572#comment-11869</guid>
		<description>No one wants even one child harmed by either lead or phthalates but thinking an adult is going to ingest a sufficient quantity of harmful compounds from their zipper pulls, or even embellishments in the form of leaded Swarovski crystals is beyond the pale.

The consumer will side with manufacturer’s and designers when they realize the inherent cost involved that results in both higher prices and lack of availability of what they decide they want.

Certainly, the cost of testing will carry forward to the retail price- and the bling may need to disappear from their precious tees and handbags.  The $2500 SEWN product evening purses available at specialty shops will clear off the shelves?  I think that would create a black market for some circles.

Rare, crocked dye goods are probably more harmful and annoying than any thing now involved in this debate - as are leather goods tanned the “old way” using human waste.

We need a well-written article explaining the pros and cons of the current proposed rules; and what the net effect to consumers will be. Knowledge, temperance and calm are required. Educate your base- involve your consumers- get an article in your local newspapers – write your representatives.

Grumbling on this list is preaching to the choir- do something.

Kaaren</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No one wants even one child harmed by either lead or phthalates but thinking an adult is going to ingest a sufficient quantity of harmful compounds from their zipper pulls, or even embellishments in the form of leaded Swarovski crystals is beyond the pale.</p>
<p>The consumer will side with manufacturer’s and designers when they realize the inherent cost involved that results in both higher prices and lack of availability of what they decide they want.</p>
<p>Certainly, the cost of testing will carry forward to the retail price- and the bling may need to disappear from their precious tees and handbags.  The $2500 SEWN product evening purses available at specialty shops will clear off the shelves?  I think that would create a black market for some circles.</p>
<p>Rare, crocked dye goods are probably more harmful and annoying than any thing now involved in this debate &#8211; as are leather goods tanned the “old way” using human waste.</p>
<p>We need a well-written article explaining the pros and cons of the current proposed rules; and what the net effect to consumers will be. Knowledge, temperance and calm are required. Educate your base- involve your consumers- get an article in your local newspapers – write your representatives.</p>
<p>Grumbling on this list is preaching to the choir- do something.</p>
<p>Kaaren</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sfriedberg</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-confusion-run-amok/comment-page-1/#comment-11861</link>
		<dc:creator>sfriedberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:43:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=2572#comment-11861</guid>
		<description>&quot;required testing will not be according to style number but most likely according to sku&quot;

That is just outrageous for something like the garment industry, where every size is a separate SKU.  I can understand testing each colorway, but not every size of men&#039;s pants from 28x30 to 48x40.  To be remotely practical, there &lt;i&gt;must&lt;/i&gt; be an approved way to convert tests on the inputs into certifications for each SKU, &lt;i&gt;without&lt;/i&gt; explicitly testing a sample of each SKU.

By the way, this new paper trail really reminds me of the WW II vintage mandatory documentation on Mil-Spec metal fasteners.  Every little bag of repair parts was traceable back to the specific batches of steel, brass, or titanium that were rolled, cast, machined or otherwise converted into washers, nuts and bolts and then placed in inventory.  Supposedly, if the wings fell off your airplane, they could figure out not only what company supplied the bad parts, but who that company&#039;s suppliers were, all the way back to molten metal refined from ore taken out of the ground.

For decades the paperwork was kept in some subterranean salt mine. (Really, that&#039;s where lots of paper records are kept in long-term storage.)  And you know what? Only an &lt;i&gt;infinitesimal&lt;/i&gt; fraction of those records were ever consulted, for &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; reason.  It was all strictly cover-your-tail record keeping.  Extremely costly, and of dubious value.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;required testing will not be according to style number but most likely according to sku&#8221;</p>
<p>That is just outrageous for something like the garment industry, where every size is a separate SKU.  I can understand testing each colorway, but not every size of men&#8217;s pants from 28&#215;30 to 48&#215;40.  To be remotely practical, there <i>must</i> be an approved way to convert tests on the inputs into certifications for each SKU, <i>without</i> explicitly testing a sample of each SKU.</p>
<p>By the way, this new paper trail really reminds me of the WW II vintage mandatory documentation on Mil-Spec metal fasteners.  Every little bag of repair parts was traceable back to the specific batches of steel, brass, or titanium that were rolled, cast, machined or otherwise converted into washers, nuts and bolts and then placed in inventory.  Supposedly, if the wings fell off your airplane, they could figure out not only what company supplied the bad parts, but who that company&#8217;s suppliers were, all the way back to molten metal refined from ore taken out of the ground.</p>
<p>For decades the paperwork was kept in some subterranean salt mine. (Really, that&#8217;s where lots of paper records are kept in long-term storage.)  And you know what? Only an <i>infinitesimal</i> fraction of those records were ever consulted, for <i>any</i> reason.  It was all strictly cover-your-tail record keeping.  Extremely costly, and of dubious value.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Babbie Rosenthal</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-confusion-run-amok/comment-page-1/#comment-11859</link>
		<dc:creator>Babbie Rosenthal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:02:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=2572#comment-11859</guid>
		<description>There is so little known about the CPSIA, and very little to be found online when Googling it.  Oh, wait, there are &quot;parent interest&quot; blogs which herald it and complain nastily that shelves are not being swept clean at this moment, and Consumer Reports lauds CPSIA and crows about their lobbying.  Can we expect consumers to be reasonable?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is so little known about the CPSIA, and very little to be found online when Googling it.  Oh, wait, there are &#8220;parent interest&#8221; blogs which herald it and complain nastily that shelves are not being swept clean at this moment, and Consumer Reports lauds CPSIA and crows about their lobbying.  Can we expect consumers to be reasonable?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Valerie Burner</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-confusion-run-amok/comment-page-1/#comment-11858</link>
		<dc:creator>Valerie Burner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:46:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=2572#comment-11858</guid>
		<description>Kathleen,

Thank you for all the effort you have put forth in this endeavor. I don&#039;t think you have been callous or unkind to consumers in any way. If anything, you have made us aware of the fact that the consumer has the power to make the choice about buying our products, and the more professional we are in the process, the better off we all are. Perhaps you&#039;re just tired. Get some sleep, and we will await more news from you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kathleen,</p>
<p>Thank you for all the effort you have put forth in this endeavor. I don&#8217;t think you have been callous or unkind to consumers in any way. If anything, you have made us aware of the fact that the consumer has the power to make the choice about buying our products, and the more professional we are in the process, the better off we all are. Perhaps you&#8217;re just tired. Get some sleep, and we will await more news from you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
