Ranting & Letting off Steam (not solutions based)

[Pamela]

The ones who made the law are oh so proud of their achievement. This excerpt was taken from the original News Release of July 28, 2008.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110nr330.shtml


“This agreement is a victory for all consumers,” said Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chairman Inouye. “Today we have proven that it is still possible to produce strong, bipartisan bills that serve the best interests of the American people. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has been a neglected agency for too many years, but this legislation puts an end to that neglect. As a result, the CPSC will have the resources, both in personnel and in authority, to provide meaningful and effective oversight for the millions of consumer products that are used each day in the United States. There is no doubt in my mind that thousands of lives will be saved and millions of injuries will be prevented due to the agreement we have reached today.”

“This commonsense piece of legislation takes measurable and concrete steps to protect consumers and children,” said House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Dingell. “It establishes an outline for improving and reforming the nation’s consumer product safety system with provisions including a nationwide ban on products containing lead beyond minute amounts, desperately needed funding for the CPSC, and dangerous phthalates in children’s toys and child care articles. I am proud of the bipartisan spirit with which this legislation was reconciled and I look forward to seeing it sent to the President for his signature before the August recess.”

“This landmark legislation will make great strides in protecting American consumers and their children, and will ensure the products they choose to bring into their homes are safe,” said Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Vice Chairman Stevens. “I am especially pleased to see a provision included to improve ATV safety by requiring both domestic and foreign manufacturers to comply with the same basic safety standards. Combined with proper training courses and consumer safety information, this provision will save many lives.”

"One of the roles of government is to get between kids and the sorts of hazards that are well beyond parents who aren’t engineers and chemists with laboratories at their disposal,” said Committee on Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Barton. “This reauthorization gives the CPSC more teeth and a deeper bite, and makes it dramatically more certain that toys aren’t tested for safety by kids on the living room floor before they’re tested in a lab by experts. We also reached a sensible compromise on the use of phthalates that every Member of the Conference Committee can support. Nobody wants our kids to be the guinea pigs in a quest for better living through chemistry, but it’s also imperative that we use unbiased, confirmable science to sort out the real dangers from the mythical ones. This bill also makes toy safety a national concern instead of relying on the growing conglomeration of local and state rules that threatened to leave everybody confused. Finally, the legislation demonstrates that normal congressional process works awfully well when it's allowed to, and that all the painful work of holding hearings, markups and conference committee meetings is more likely to produce a good outcome than the my-way-or-the-highway process that occasionally tempts lawmakers."

[Aria]

Measurable and concrete steps in protecting? Great strides in protecting American consumers and their children?

Are those the new phrases to mean measurable and concrete steps in hurting families and children? Great strides in closing down cottage industries and making sure no small business can ever start without tens of thousands in capital, essentially denying us the right to pursue happiness?

The lawmakers may make enough money that every children's item going up in price is affordable for them, but they're out of touch if they think most families can afford that. We're put serious thought into never having children (we have to go trough in vitro again, and decided to go forward) because we don't know how we'll be able to afford cribs ad car seats if they skyrocket in cost. Is this some sort of population-control measure?

[Aria]

Why the hell do the not just SUSPEND this law entirely and focus on the compliance issues they're had? If they couldn't get foreign toy companies to comply with lead in paint, how do they expect to force ALL people to comply with MORE laws? If companies are shipping items with lead, fine the hell out of that company instead of punishing home-based businesses and other businesses who've done nothing wrong. The problem isn't needing new laws, but rather enforcing existing laws. That would take care of all but one of the types of recalls in recent years (a piece of jewelry pulled off a shoe, not books or clothes).

[Mark from Denver]

The way things are going, prices will be so jacked up that many parents won't be able to buy clothing for their kids (let alone toys). Ok, well, maybe a few things from Goodwill since they got kind of an exemption.

So, will it be ok for kids to simply run around naked? Plus, they will only be able to play with themselves.

[happymom4]

The kids will go back to STICKS and DIRT and ADULT TOOLS just like they used to in Great, Great Grand-daddy's era. . . .

Seriously. The rate of fingers and feet being chopped with Jr. having borrowed Daddy's hatchet will climb, the rate of Susie being impalled on the tines of the pitchfork will climb . . . . so then what?? A ban on all tools?!

[Pixie]

Aria: Sorry I haven't checked in to see your request.

I can't find the original place I found it, but it is also listed here: http://nationalbankruptcyday.com/archive/cpsia-vs-science-round-3-congress-wins-by-a-ko/

[Pixie]

I think one of the things that strikes me is what about innocent until proven guilty. What about us? So I'm a criminal because I can't afford a single test to prove my innocence? Seem very backward....

[Guest]

VENTING:
WTF is this disclaimer at the bottom of THEIR website PDF report. They deleted the 13 pg "send comments" report & put 2 now.

"*This document, which was prepared by CPSC staff, has not been reviewed or approved by and
may not necessarily represent the views of the Commission."

The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. grrrrrrr

[Aria]

Pixie, I've since come by that link. If kids are breaking a glass bulb and eating the little bit of lead, I think the parents either need to wait until the kid's not a toddler or realize they've got bigger problems.

Guest, I saw that disclaimer and it's unsettling. How can we prepare when they're claiming what we have to work with may not be correct? How can businesses plan if they plan one way and it may go another?!

[blizzard77]

So...I got another quote from a CPSC-certified testing agency today. Guess what I learned????

They don't test each unit as a whole like I thought. (i.e. melting each unit outfit down and testing the "melt"-- or whatever it's called--for lead.) Oh, no. They test EACH Substrate of EACH unit to compile their unit testing results. Now HTH is that different than component testing??

What on earth is the point of me sending in 5 dress "units", all with the same style/thread/tags/elastic but in different colorways/fabric colors and having the lab test the components of all 5, five times each? Let me just GIVE them an extra $500 per dress! Particularly because the only two variable substrates per unit are ALREADY tested by two other places to have no lead content! 10ppm, to be exact.

ARGH! Somebody's making a ton of money and it sure ain't me!