Find all your DIY electronics in the MakerShed. 3D Printing, Kits, Arduino, Raspberry Pi, Books & more!

Thanks to the incredible grassroots movement against the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which would have gone into effect on February 10, 2009, the commission that created the law has voted to stay the legislation for one year.
“The stay of enforcement provides some temporary, limited relief to the crafters, children’s garment manufacturers and toy makers who had been subject to the testing and certification required under the CPSIA. These businesses will not need to issue certificates based on testing of their products until additional decisions are issued by the Commission.”
Read the full statement here.
Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina has sponsored an amendment in order to reform the law.
It’s certainly not a done deal, but it’s a step in the right direction.


Related

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    I’m glad people from DC are finally taking action on this. It wouldn’t have happened if not for all the “little guys” who made themselves heard.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I just sent off an email to Senator DeMint thanking him for his proposed amendment and his support of small businesses selling handmade goods (in this instance at least). I’ve also written a letter to my senator urging him to support it. I hope others do the same. DeMint’s amendment seems a very common sense approach.

  3. Anonymous says:

    What about the fact that we have a problem with lead in our children’s toys? There is now another year that our children will be playing with toxic toys that can make them sick. There is a reason this law was created in the first place.

  4. Melinda says:

    This “stay” is nothing but political tap-dancing and yet another example of the government talking out of both sides of their mouth. We gained nothing with this stay. Under the CPSIA, the state attorneys general can still pursue manufacturers and retailers for products which are not compliant with the Feb. 10 lead and phthalates standards. If you don’t test, then how do you assure compliance?
    Also, if you sell to retailers, they are still going to ask for proof of compliance in the form of testing reports and/or certificates of compliance so they limit the legal liability of their inventory. So the fact that the CPSC has granted a stay for testing and certificates is moot.
    Back to the drawing board, folks….

  5. homer glen says:

    OK, after reading the entire article, I see that this does not affect the legislation put in place to protect children from small toy parts and a restricted lead paint level. My concern stems from manufacturers of children’s clothing and the potential harmful chemicals used in the processing of that fabric and to the flammability of that fabric. Let’s not continue to put safety behind profit. This goes for large manufacturers as well as small businesses. As a small business owner I could not live with myself if I knew that I deliberately sold a product that I knew could harm a child simply because the federal regulations said I did not have to regulate the quality of my products. Let’s get our priorities straight here people.

  6. CathyW says:

    I’m glad the law was delayed. I am very much in favor of banning lead and dangerous plastics from not just children’s products, but also from adult ones as well (lead and phthalates aren’t good for adults either, just not as harmful), AND enforcing it. But the law as written could have meant the end of children’s libraries, as well as causing problems with schools (what school districts do YOU know of that can afford to ditch all their books and start over from scratch, especially given that books have not been shown to be a source of lead in children’s diets), and it would mean that artisans would likely have to quit making children’s clothing or toys. I favor asking the big manufacturers of fabrics, notions, paints, etc to certify their products. That way, when those of us who make one-of-a-kind objects are automatically in compliance, when we purchase them. I also favor exempting artisans who produce their own materials – (so the fibers artist who raises her own sheep, spins, dyes it etc) – allowing them to sell their items with a certificate that says “I believe this to be lead-free but I haven’t tested it” sort of thing. Or “I use non-toxic dyes that do not contain lead or plastics, but I’ve not tested my garments”.

In the Maker Shed