The CPSC issued Guidelines. The section for retailers and resellers of children’s products, including thrift stores, consignment shops and charities gives us Table C: Commonly Resold Children’s Products and Materials. It lists out 10 different common type products and tells whether it is ok to sell.

Since in reality, there are few clothing items that do not have buttons, zippers, snaps, decorations of some type, etc., CPSC’s guidelines say to Test, contact the manufacturer, OR NOT SELL, this makes most all products for children potentially “hazardous” whether they are or not. It is not realistic for a resale shop to test, or contact the manufacturer for each and every piece of their merchandise. Seriously, that pretty little dress or suit is dangerous to our kids just because it has buttons and zippers????? Oh, and how about don’t sell toys that could have small parts come off of them and that children under 3 could choke on? Obviously these toys are not intended for that age and the parents should not be letting their children play with them.

It really annoys me that some posts say that resellers are putting profits above safety. Have Americans lost all their common sense? The items we have in our store have not injured the prior child that wore them, why are they not safe (hazardous) now? I guess some of these posters don’t know how much it would cost to test every item. It isn’t profits over safety! Why would anyone with any sense test an item that they will sell for $2.00 when the testing for that one item would be more than $200. Common sense people! Who out there would do this when the possibility of that item being unsafe is slim to none. Most resellers, including us, wouldn’t have ANYTHING in our store that we think has an actual chance of being not safe.

Parent’s need to be responsible for their children. Don’t buy things for your children that you think could harm them. Don’t let them play with toys that aren’t safe for them. Don’t let your children eat their clothes! I fully believe in protecting our children, but I think this law, as it stands, is ridiculous.

The concern about CPSIA is not “much ado about nothing”. The January 8th clarification from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) only “clarified” that resellers didn’t have to test. But we never thought we had to test. We only have to “know” that the products we sell are lead-free. You make that sound so simple. I called the CPSC and asked them for recommendations on what we could safely sell. They had an easy answer: “Test it”.

If you want to see the not so long list of safe to sell items straight from CPSC, try this document from February 6th: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09120.html

The list includes: “(1)a children’s product to the extent that it is made of certain natural materials, such as wood, cotton, wool, or certain metals and alloys which the Commission has recognized rarely, if ever, contain lead;
(2)an ordinary children’s book printed after 1985; or
(3) dyed or undyed textiles (not including leather, vinyl or PVC) and non-metallic thread and trim used in children’s apparel and other fabric products, such as baby blankets.”

That notice came out days before the law went into effect. That was when we found out that books printed before 1986 were not safe to sell. It’s also when the CPSC made it very clear that we could safely buy and sell children’s clothes — as long as they are simple items like blankets. Guess what, as soon as you add snaps, zippers, even screen printing, the chances of having too much lead go way, way up!

So, no, it is not safe to sell children’s clothes right now. At least not according to this law.

And as far as the sensible people making this type of law. Yes, lead poisoning is a problem. But, as a previous poster mentioned, we have to be concerned about lead being ingested. Children are not getting poisoned from their clothes, or their books, or their bicycle tires, or many of the other items that are no longer legal to sell.

Never mind what this will do to the prices of new items that will have to be tested, that shouldn’t be, after February 21010…And the products that small manufacturers can’t afford to make after February next year.

So, please keep looking, and consider updating your information once again.

I think even more information is needed since resellers can be fined or jailed for selling items that are untested if they contain higher lead counts even if the reseller has no information on the lead count (as in that information is not available).

Ironically handcrafted, made in the USA toys saw a huge boost in sales from the lead scares. Now they might be driven out of business entirely.

This law favors the big toy manufacturers who were responsible for the lead scare anyway. The ones who make mass produced toys in China are the ones who can afford to get their products tested.

I also looked up the numbers on lead exposure at the CDC, as Karen did. They indicated that in the period from 1976-1980, more than 88% of children had levels above those now considered tolerable,compared to 1.6% of children in the 1995-2002 period.

This decline took place BEFORE the implementation of this new law. From more than 88% to less than 2% is pretty impressive. (That also means that most Americans over the age of 40 or so had blood lead levels as children that are now considered dangerous, and we mostly survived.)

Obviously, the lead-reduction measures taken in the past 30 years (notably the elimination of leaded gasoline and of lead-based paints) have worked very well.

Diets ample in calcium and Vitamin C also have protective effects, and may have been more widely shared in recent years than before although a large percentage of children still don’t get enough calcium. Calcium prevents the absorption of lead from the intestinal tract.

My father was a third-generation commercial painter who used red lead paint daily throughout his life and my childhood. We were around it all the time, with no discernable ill effects cognitively or otherwise. Some of his crew who neglected wearing their masks would come down with symptoms of lead poisoning, which a gallon of milk daily for a few weeks seemed to take care of (although there may have been subtle long-term effects and of course, the workers were not children).

This new law is probably going to cost far more than the value it will add to further reducing lead exposure. Personally, if I had a child to protect and a limited budget, I’d rather put the money into a safer vehicle, protective sports gear, plenty of milk, more fresh fruits and vegetables,good dental care, rather than certified tested lead-free clothes. To minimize lead exposure I’d check my pipes to make sure lead is not present, dust frequently, wash the dust rags, and use a good HEPA vaccuum cleaner.

Way to go, politicos!

I also take issue with the statement “there are sensible people in charge of consumer issues.” Yes, they came up with a sensible solution this time, but this ridiculous law should never have seen the light of day. I believe they should focus their efforts on testing goods imported from other countries. Lead poisoning occurs through ingestion. Lead based paint was banned in the US in 1978. The culprits are the foreign importers. We need to tighten our regulations on these imports, or just stop buying foreign products. And if your home was built before 1978, have the paint tested.

And what about “fudged” test results from overseas factories? Lest we forget the “government inspected” milk products that killed all those babies.