View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Guest Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:49 pm Post subject: CPSC rulings expected today? |
|
|
Was there supposed to be some news today from the CPSC? I thought Jan 5th was a deadline...? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kathleen F. Site Admin
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 11557 Location: NM Albuquerque
|
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Today was the day they're having an inhouse vote on natural materials. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest Guest
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:35 am Post subject: CPSC to rule on exempt material |
|
|
If the CPSC rules to exempt natural material, is there still hope they could exempt synthetic fabrics? Or is this decision final on exemptions? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AB Guest
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Julie Vallese, spokesman for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, says they are looking into exemptions for small retailers and toymakers and hope to resolve the matter soon.
"The Commission is very much aware of the looming deadline," said Vallese.
Found it here http://www.kval.com/news/37117274.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kathleen F. Site Admin
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 11557 Location: NM Albuquerque
|
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Beth C wrote: |
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a0Xr2Iw1Vi_8&refer=us
Has anyone else heard about this? What does it mean to the handcrafter?
It's a start, right? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shannon Foster Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
That is a step in the right direction for many and I am truly happy for those that it helps but unless the apparel maker is going to make a completely natural color line, that doesn't help much. I guess I am pouting selfishly. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kiki Fluhr Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
The CPSC exempted wool, cotton, silk, gemstones and pearls in its proposal today. |
Does anyone know if it's all wool and cotton or just undyed? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shannon Foster Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I got really excited when I read that but the actual proposal states they have to be untreated and unadulterated by the addition of dyes, pigments, etc. The only way these fabrics will be exempt is if they are in their natural state. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tracy D Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I knew it.....I read the Bloomberg report and thought "cool, wool, cotton, silk. That's a good step....but I bet there's more..." Yep, I knew it would only be undyed. I knew it. They won't be happy until we all look like we just stepped out of some 1980's bad scifi movie, and yes that is redundant.
Raw undyed silk, with clean, 'certified' thread....no lace...you could still make a gorgeous christening gown...and in a couple of months possibly make a bit of $$$ something tells me.
Tracy D
ready to go to sleep and think on this |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SarahJ Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shannon Foster wrote: |
I got really excited when I read that but the actual proposal states they have to be untreated and unadulterated by the addition of dyes, pigments, etc. The only way these fabrics will be exempt is if they are in their natural state. |
can you tell me where I can find this info? I am seeing a lot of posts by people who saw on their local news that "all children's clothes are now exempt from the new law" because of this ruling, but I can't actually find anything clearer than the bloomberg story (which isn't specific at all). I'm assuming it's the undyed stuff they were talking about before, but I can't find anything about Monday's ruling specifically. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I should have mentioned -- I need a link or quote I can send them; I'm personally not buying the news stories. thanks! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Diana, Hanna's Dream Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:54 am Post subject: I found a link to the ballot on these exemptions |
|
|
Yes indeed, the news reports are wrong. I just found the actual ballot: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia09/brief/leadlimits.pdf
And it specifically says: "The staff recommends that these findings only apply to a material that is untreated and unadulterated by the addition of materials or chemicals including pigments, dyes, coats, finishes or any other substance, and has not undergone any processing that could result in lead content that exceeds the CPSIA lead limits"
So this will not effect children's clothing hardly at all (except for a few undyed t-shirts!). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Frances Liebold Guest
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Beth C Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:47 pm Post subject: Re: 1/8/09 Guidance Intended for Resellers of Children’s P |
|
|
Frances Liebold wrote: |
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html |
About time too. Can we now get a ruling on handmade goods???? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shannon Foster Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SarahJ wrote: |
Shannon Foster wrote: |
I got really excited when I read that but the actual proposal states they have to be untreated and unadulterated by the addition of dyes, pigments, etc. The only way these fabrics will be exempt is if they are in their natural state. |
can you tell me where I can find this info? I am seeing a lot of posts by people who saw on their local news that "all children's clothes are now exempt from the new law" because of this ruling, but I can't actually find anything clearer than the bloomberg story (which isn't specific at all). I'm assuming it's the undyed stuff they were talking about before, but I can't find anything about Monday's ruling specifically. |
Scroll down about halfway http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia09/brief/leadlimits.pdf |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|