" "Cherokee": Thanks for helping make my point. Sarcasm is hard to get across in print. My point was that politicians are already putting their noses in places that they don’t belong. The last thing I want is Senator Brad Hutto, Senator Jim Demint, or Mrs. Cobb-Hunter telling me or anyone else how to educate our children, telling banks they have to give high risk loans to stay in business, some should not pay their share of taxes, or how much money I can make. I am for a flat tax, school vouchers, and smaller government. Since 1776 the government has continued to grow and interfere with our lives, and we are slowly loosing the American dream. "

" American Values: You are right on but you have missed a very important point! Your statement "if you leave it to the government you will have politicans trying to tell doctors how to heal the sick, teachers how to teach, law enforcement how to police, and business how to produce" infers that they don't do this now. Actually they do so right now!

But this is a minor problem. If you, and the general public have been listening to the news as of late, Congress and the President may be embroiled in a far more serious situation. Pakistan has entered a truce with the Taliban!

This truce is the first step for the Taliban in controlling all of Pakistan including their nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. It is a fact that the Taliban would NOT hesitate to use them against our soldiers and others that do not bow down and embrace their distorted version of the Koran and Islam.

Did you notice that the media, the President, Congress, and the State Department have been mostly silent on this development? They are mute because they do not want to warn the general public. Exactly the same thing occurred prior to WWII. America had to be attacked before the general public knew of the exact danger they faced.`Will History repeat itself?

How apt was one of the statements made during Obama's run for the Presidency about America being severely tested and possibly attacked? Was this a forewarning from someone in the know? "

" As a man, voter, and American I believe that it is the parents job to make sure that your children arent being harmed. If you leave it to the government you will have politicans trying to tell doctors how to heal the sick, teachers how to teach, law enforcement how to police, and business how to produce. And show me one thing that politicians haven't touched that is in trouble like the economy, health care, social security, defense, immigration. Mrs. Cobb-Hunter I hope you took better care of your children, or are you letting the government raise your child? "

" De Mint Rules!!!!!!! "

" I'm amazed that people think that this is "for the children." If there was proof that there was a risk, that's what this would be about. When California was creating their lead laws they at least had to prove a risk before a product could be added.

I can't wait to see the first court case that comes because of this, because the law won't hold up. They will actually have to have evidence, and there just isn't any.

Unfortunately until then, books holding our country's history and values are being destroyed.

It's a sad sad thing.

Blanket legislation like this does more harm than good. Wake up, listen to the people, and change this! "

" Wow, I can't believe someone in Ms. Cobb-Hunters position (elected) would put these thoughts in writing. Mr. DeMint sees the problems with the CPSIA and is clearly trying to define what was not thought out when this law was written.

As a Grandmother of 9 I started my small, cottage industry business of making toys for babies and toddlers BECAUSE of the recalls of 2007. I would never construct a toy using materials that were not safe! And I am still waiting for someone to tell me how if I purchase materials from a supplier that has already certified their materials safe according to the law why I have to "test" my final product? Am I injecting lead and Phthalates into my toys in my sewing room? I don't think so.

I am FOR a law that, when written properly and carefully, bans lead and other things from our children's toys and other items they come in contact with. I cannot think of one person I know that handmakes and creates items for children that is against the heart of the CPSIA law, not one!

The cost of testing would take my $20.00 soft cloth tool set for toddlers to $10,940.00. The increase of $10,920.00 is the cost of testing as defined by the current CPSIA law! Now, I imagine that that cost would be nothing to a large toy company (many of which were the ones that caused this law to be written in the first place and paid MILLIONS to lobbyists), but it is going to put me out of business.

I respectfully suggest you READ the law and try and understand that it is one of the most poorly written laws ever passed. I cannot believe that everyone that voted for this thing to pass even read it, not to mention trying to figure out what the fallout would be to small businesses AND to parents that will not have a choice! "

" CPSIA needs revision but exactly WHO is going to revise it, HOW is the revision going to occur, and WHEN will it occur? WILL a revision actually be done or WILL the revision be worse than the original?

This is the same type of problem that WE are going to experience if the SC Legislature has its way with dictating what foods can be served at schools around the State. The problem is WHO is going to decide what foods are to be incorporated into the menus and which is forbidden. I'm referring to the meats, vegetables, carbohydrates, etc. not to what is known as snack foods (PS. Not all snack foods are bad for you).

There are very few nutritionists that can agree as what is healthy and what is not (meats, vegetables, etc.) and in what proportions. Remember, they first promoted the eating of eggs, then decided they were bad for you, and then decided that they were, indeed, good for you. (?????) Another view -- look at all of the diet fads that are being promoted. They all disagree with each other.

Let the parents decide what their child is to eat or not to eat. Send home a menu that will allow the parents to make choices. DON'T LET ANY POLITICIAN MAKE THE CHOICE FOR YOU. They make TOO many mistakes. "

" Bottom line,Left vs. Right,Dems vs. GOP,Good vs. Evil, The fight goes on. "

" Even though everyone but Janet is getting onto Gilda, I can certify that Hunter puts as much time and common sense into every bill she votes on in the House as she did on researching this letters topic. This isnt an oversight by her. It is just how NARROW MINDED and partisan she is... Some are Leaders , and some of our leaders are really followers. They just do what the party sez... Who does Gilda belong to? "

" Gilda please have your home and office checked for lead.
It causes loss of mental function.
Your attack on Demint is symptomatic of lead poisoning!
Get well soon! "

" In response to Janet,
I am struck by the similarity that your response bears to PIRG’s or Public Citizen’s websites in defense of the Act. I would suggest that you read up on ALL sides of the issue prior to judging an issue and making your comments.

The law does not provide “tools and guidance” for the CPSC; it does not. The CPSC was sued in federal court when they tried to remove the retroactivity of the phthalates ban. They lost this suit brought by the NRDC; the opinion said the law as passed by Congress was clear. There is little wiggle room for them, and they are doing their best to balance industry interests (even small industry) while maintaining safety in the marketplace. The implementation of this Act is only one of many items they are charged with.

You state, “[i]f you are a manufacturer and your supplier refuses to provide you with certification that the components parts he is providing you with are lead and/or phthalate free, I suggest you find another supplier.” I actually agree with you… in theory (that approach uses common sense). However, here is where you indicate a very common misunderstanding of how the CPSIA will work. Under the Act in its current form, we CANNOT use supplier certificates as proof of conformity. We, as the manufacturers, must pay for this testing. IF we can find an available lab, IF that lab will even work with a smaller business, I will be on the hook for paying for upwards of $1500 of testing (this includes both lead and phthalates) for ONE style of bib or blanket. While there are some alternatives being investigated, none of them allows for supplier certificates for proof of conformity under the law.

“If you make handcrafted toys with natural materials like cloth, or wood, the CPSC has the power to exempt your products from testing.” Maybe. However, if that product is defined as a “child care” article, we’re still on the hook for phthalates testing (the more expensive one, at around $350 per test). Where are phthalates found? In plastics, hygiene products, vinyl, PVC. What about cotton fabrics? No? Well, I still have to test because I make baby blankets and bibs.

While your concern for children’s safety is admirable, perhaps you should focus your efforts where the real risks are. You correctly state that phthalates cross the placenta (as so many good and bad things do). However, these risks begin with products mom uses or that are found commonly in the home or with hospital stays, not with pacifiers or cotton bibs. Lead is generally not found in toys (outside of those that were imported from overseas factories). Those of us using cotton and polyester fabrics, US-sourced wood, paints that my 7-year-old can purchase (already tested and certified toxin-free), etc. should not be punished for the sins of outsourced products.
I have gone back to read what you state are “mean-spirited responses.” The vast majority are based in fact by people who understand the broad ramifications of the Act, including the economic and safety issues. Not one of them suggested that we take our profits over safety. Most of us started our businesses in response to the mass-marketed, shoddily-made, unsafe or inappropriate toys found on most large stores’ shelves.

The effects of this law in its current form are twofold. First, it grants those who originally brought in the tainted items an even larger share of the marketplace. Second, it will succeed in is forcing tens of thousands of small businesses, home crafters, and artisans out of work. And we have children, too. "

" Since most toys now come from China. Let us ban all toys ans goods from China. Hooray for Gilda. She is the first Democrat to want to put restrictions on Chinese trade. The main way to create jobs is to restrict the Chinese Trade Treaty of 1996. She needs to use her influence on Obama and RESTRICT all Chinese toys, books, and other goods. "

" Gilda Cobb wake up quit your attacks and do whats right. Put your liberal view is right and oppose anything a republican says is wrong attitude away. What your doing is a prime example why people get SICK of politics. Your only saying this because a republican is the one that came up with this. DO WHATS RIGHT GILDA and did you even read the bill? Looking at the other reponses here its not a democrat verse republican buts its doing what is right. If your to blind to see this maybe your the one who needs to stay at home in 2010. "

" Rep.Cobb-Hunter is overreacting. It is very unlikely that lead and phthalate issues are the life threatening problems in the current battle for economic survival in the country. The business of saving children should rest with parents. Since the unemployment commission has signaled that it might be running out of money for handouts, it maybe the best time for all politicians to start talking honestly and tell the citizens to find work or go hungry. There is NO dearth of jobs in a place like Orangeburg, just people who hate to work for a living. We need to take a serious look at extreme malaise fueled by small handouts by government to families with children. This has essentially prevented these people from seeking jobs ( lest they lose their checks!). We do not want to lose two more generations of children to sloth with perverse incentives to stay glued to texting cellphones and trash TV.. "

" I continue to be amazed at how often the dangers of lead and phthalates are used as a sort of shield by those in defense of CPSIA. Any fairly intelligent person can understand that these substances are highly inappropriate in the production of toys and other children's products, particularly for small children who tend to put everything into their mouths.

On the dangers of lead and phthalates we can all agree. It is imperative that we keep our children as safe as we can (no easy feat in this toxic world we've created). I will take the liberty of saying that on this too, we can all agree. Now I ask you to explain to me how the CPSIA will keep children safe, and how exactly it addresses the problem at hand. And while you’re at it, show me one *American made* children’s product that has harmed a child due to the presence of lead or phthalates. And consider for a moment the cocktail of noxious poisons that is in just about every space your child inhabits. Who will protect you and your family? What are you doing to make a difference in our world?

There are those who put profit before people. In 2007 (and through much of our history as a country) the health and very lives of our children were treated as no more important than that of the tiniest insect. If you want to be angry, direct your emotion at the offenders. There were perfectly good regulations in place before CPSIA. The big players BROKE THE LAW. Only these criminals will be left standing if we do not support our American crafts-people. We need to make it easy for Americans to do business, not impossible.

Forget the fact that this will allow our people to earn money enough to pay their mortgages, buy groceries, and pay that dental bill; those greed driven extras we all want, you know. Instead try to imagine how pathetic things will be, and how low you will have sunk, when you are only able to purchase toys and other children's products from the very people who thought nothing of poisoning your children.

We crafters and small business people, who offer your children not just safe, but ethically produced products meant to enhance their lives, are in your court. We're on your side, and we care so much about the children of this world. Kill us, and you will be left with a society completely stripped of its personality, intellect, and diversity.

Every day I look around and realize we are one step closer to becoming real life inhabitants of the film ‘Idiocracy.’ In this imaginary United States, water is no longer used to nurture our bodies and crops; instead a vividly colored Gatorade-like drink replaces it, and the citizens wonder why nothing will grow, though they don't notice how stupid they've all become. Now our government is telling us which books to read to our children. Next, will we be told who among us can breathe the air?

Don’t insult my intelligence by hiding behind “the children.” I am quite aware of the dangers of lead and phthalates. Let’s not pretend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is a common sense law that’s going to protect our children from harm. Read it, read it, and read it again. I’m confident that if you do so, you will understand where the real danger lies, and you will agree that our children deserve so much more.

Cecilia Leibovitz
craftsburykids.com
handmadetoyalliance.org "

" In response to Janet: Nobody here has said that they think that lead and phthalates DO belong in toys, or books, or clothing. I also have not read a SINGLE response here even suggesting that children's safety be subordinate to profit. Frankly, there are plenty of people, myself included, who are fine with the *intent* of the CPSIA. Toxins in general don't belong around people of any age, in my opinion, but the law AS WRITTEN doesn't make the kinds of distinctions that will really impact children and improve their safety.

The way the law was written gave an underfunded and understaffed CPSC 6 months to sort through a law that Congress itself spent less than a day debating before passing. It gave them conditions which require more than 6 months to meet: exemptions can be granted after "thorough" and "scientific" study. It takes far longer than 6 months for the FDA to approve food additives and medications given similar legislative constraints, so there is really no point in blaming the CPSC for trying to work with what they were handed.

I would be more than happy to provide certification of my goods, if only certification were enough. But under this law, as a "manufacturer," I can't use the certifications and MSDS for my supplies as proof that my final product is lead-free and phthalate-free. If I crocheted baby booties, I could buy certifed lead-free and phthalate-free yarn, but once I use a crochet hook to turn that yarn into a garment, I would be personally responsible for HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS (sadly, that's not a typing error) of testing to prove that lead-free yarn+crochet hook=lead-free. There is no chemical way that lead or phthalates can be produced by my process of dyeing clothes, either, but under this law, unless I fork over huge fees PER ITEM (as I make one-of-a-kind items) for third-party lab testing, my safe items are still considered hazardous for lack of a piece of paper. The piece of paper won't make them ANY safer - just more expensive and unavailable to those who would otherwise like them and purchase them.

While an XRF gun (at a cost of *merely* $40,000, or rented for a piddling $400 a day) can be used to detect lead in items without damaging them (although the operator would be wearing lead, ironically, for his or her own safety), the testing for phthalates destroys the item being tested. If I were mass-producing hundreds of thousands of an item, sacrificing one item per batch wouldn't be a hardship, but for those of us who do our own handiwork, one item at a time, that's not realistic, or cost-effective, or frankly NECESSARY for the VAST majority of children's items on the market today. The only people who would benefit from the majority of this law is those who run, work in, or own stock in testing labs.

DeMint is NOT proposing to *dismantle* the CPSIA. He is proposing to apply, albeit retroactively, the common sense that was missing in the law in the first place. The Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act should be just that: and Act to Improve Product Safety for Consumers - not an act to drive safe children's items out of the market and into landfills.

It's all very cavalier to say that we should all just suck it up and deal with it, that we should work with the CPSC to make the necessary changes. Believe me, many thousands of us are and have been working on that for many months now. But unless and until you have looked at this law from the perspective of an artisan or crafter or consumer of QUALITY handmade and/or small-batch children's products, and considered the HUGE economic impacts this will have on people who already make SAFE products, unless you have READ the entire law in the first place and seen for yourself how vast and overarching and destructive it truly is, then odds are that you truly have no idea how badly it was written and why it needs to be changed. "

" Normally I am more than happy to side with anyone who opposes Jim DeMint, and I am also not a fan of DeMint's proposed legislation - but, sadly, CPSIA, while written with the best of intentions, is, in fact, a terribly drafted law that will cause serious problems and will not accoplish that which it sets out to do. In these economic times it is frankly irresponsible for those who care about children's welfare in the United States to let themselves be suckered by so-called "public interest groups" into defending CPSIA on the grounds that it will "save" children from lead poisoning and phthalate exposure, when the scientific evidence of those "harms" is so remote, and the evidence of the actual harms - to business, to parents who will have to pay the increased cost of needless testing, and to the resale economy (to name only a few) - is overwhelming. We owe it to the children not to waste our resources on poorly drafted plans, but to focus on actual harms such as lead in paint and lack of enforcement of existing standards. The diversion of resources into CPSIA compliance benefits no one but testing companies and lobbyists.

Please continue to bash DeMint as regularly as possible, but I urge you to learn more about the effects of CPSIA - from some source other than USPIRG - before claiming that this law will help children in any way. The evidence points to the contrary. "

" Millions?

There are nearly 80 million children in America. How many of them will derive any benefit whatsoever from CPSIA?

As a woman and a mother who is very concerned about children's safety, I challenge Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter to name TWO children who have been lead poisoned by children's books, children's clothing, or children's toys other than jewelry in the last ten years.

The truth is: she can't.

The truth is, CPSIA is harmful to children. It places a barrier between children and their former free access to books and educational supplies. It has provoked widespread discards of used winter coats and used blue jeans which will be very badly needed next winter. It has created an enormous risk of damage to businesses.

I'll tell you something about big, bad businesses. They are owned by parents and grandparents. They employ parents and grandparents. When these businesses are destroyed, there are children who will certainly feel the effects.

My husband and I own a business threatened by CPSIA. Our business is the means through which our children are supplied with the very necessities of life. I am hoping and praying that Congress will see the wisdom of Jim DeMint's proposal and act immediately for the sake of our children.

Against Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter's fantasy millions who will be harmed if CPSIA is justly repealed, I can show pictures of children who will be harmed if it isn't. "

" First buying and selling pre-1985 books is illegal, what is next? Owning them? "

" I completely agree with all these comments...Senator DeMint needs to stay, Gilda needs to go....and go now!! "

" Please post your sources of information. I can't find any statistics or credible sources that agree with you. Until you include this sort of information no one should take what you say seriously for a moment. "

" Sen. Demint has done a lot of things the writers of this law apparently didn't - Use some common sense and realize that one size doesn't fit all, and that small businesses exist and don't work the same as large corps.

The CPSC has said that only those books after 1985 are ok to sell, regardless of whether they are actual dangerous (simply another thing not considered before the vote)

As an artist, illustrator and book lover it makes me incredibly sad that due to this law people are throwing out vintage children's books. Many of the books I grew up with are now illegal to sell and not in print. The books and illustrations that inspired me to take up my career may now be lost to future generations. I'm sad that misinformed people will throw out old books because they now think they are dangerous. I'm sad that our legislators would disregard a huge part of 20th century literature simply because it was for children. I'm sad that we may lose a part of our culture because of a law no one wants to admit has problems.

I'm also sad for the people who had to close their businesses or will have to by next year because they cannot absorb the cost of redundant testing. I'm sad for them because all that pain can be avoided by applying some common sense solutions that would allow them to test affordably. "

" Hooray -- Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter -- and thank you for your articulate and common sense defense of the Consumer Product Safety Information Act (CPSIA).

The current leadership of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the agency charged with implementing the toy safety bill that banned lead and phthalates from children's toys, is creating a climate of confusion and contributing to efforts to undermine the law.

In the six months Congress gave the CPSC to provide guidance to industry about how the law will be implemented, they have managed to confuse everyone including thrift stores, retailers, handcrafted toymakers, the apparel industry—even libraries. Still other factions who actively opposed the bill are now calling for its repeal, and are clearly also fanning the flame of opposition to this much-needed, historic piece of legislation.

The CPSIA was created to get lead and phthalates out of kids’ toys – lead is one of the most toxic chemicals on the planet. Phthalates are reproductive toxins so powerful they can cross the placenta and negatively impact fetal development.

The law already provides the tools and guidance necessary for timely and effective implementation. But the CPSC isn't using its authority to prioritize protecting children's health or providing businesses and retailers with the guidance they need to comply with the law.

NO amount of lead is safe in kids’ toys. Even very small amounts of lead in children's blood -- amounts well below the current federal standard -- are associated with reduced IQ scores. Once a child is exposed to lead the lead in that child doesn’t go away, it accumulates in places where calcium is stored, like bones.

Lead and phthalates have no business being in children’s toys. Period. If you are a manufacturer and your supplier refuses to provide you with certification that the component parts he is providing you with are lead and/or phthalate free, I suggest you find another supplier.

If you make handcrafted toys with natural materials like cloth, or wood, the CPSC has the power to exempt your products from testing.

Pardon my outrage, but the mean-spirited responses to Rep. Cobb-Hunter's post don't sound like they are coming from people that care about kids health. They sound like they are coming from people that prioritize profits over public health. Why not put your energy into working with the CPSC to make this important law work, instead of trying to gut it before it has even had a chance to succeed?? "

" Senator Demint is one of the few people in our government brave enough to point out that this is a deeply flawed law and I feel is it is disingenuous to say that he values businesses over children. I feel, rather, that the people who wrote and, as you seem to do, blindly support the CPSIA are using children's safety as a shield to snipe at their political adversaries.

A law that treats the possessions of a 12 year old exactly the same as those of a 1 year old is, quite bluntly, a stupid law. 12 year olds are not eating old books, nor are they mouthing their bikes or ATVs, yet these products are now not able to be sold due to lead content.

Good work. Please, continue to publicly pat yourself on the back for further eroding the economy.

Most cases of lead poisoning in children are due to old or dilapidated housing, not toys.

Furthermore, lead recalls for toys have generally involved lead in paint (already illegal) and lead in metal jewelry. So, why make a law that includes ALL children's products, when the real dangers are so easily identifiable?

Congress really does boggle the mind. "

" Gilda, instead of Sen Demint coming home in 2010 why don't you go away. Orangeburg Co would certainly be for the better......... Oh and did I tell you way to research your topic before writing. I hope you listen to the post on here and see how this really affects kids. "

" Gilda- Open mouth & insert foot....hahahaha
Its about time people can see you for what you truly are.. A completely PARTISAN politician who will slam the opposition over anything that can GRAB headlines. Then the uneducated will believe the known Lies that are told them. "

" What does this mean in terms of our small bookstore? We must comply with these standards even for books that were published years ago, while our collective medical history in the United States reveals not a single instance of a child lead-poisoned by a book.

The vast majority of twentieth century children’s literature is currently out-of-print in any form, and we at Jacobsen Books often receive orders from teachers who want to share particular out-of-print books with their classes and parents or grandparents who want children to own nice copies of books that they once enjoyed.

Even in cases where books are in-print, often as flimsy softcovers with few or no illustrations, we find that many teachers and parents desire vintage books. Older books are most often clothbound with sturdy, long-lasting sewn (not glued) bindings and typically include beautifully vivid illustrations. According to CPSC regulations, these non-hazardous books printed through 1984 are now generally contraband, since they contain small amounts of lead in the inks or cover decoration.

Although no child has ever been poisoned by a book, we’ve been asked to sequester the pre-1985 books in our children’s department and neither market them to children nor market them to teachers, parents, and grandparents as appropriate for children. Our lawyers have told us that these regulations require us to completely rearrange our business–our layout, our signage, our children’s activities, our web sites (especially valerieslivingbooks.info) and our Internet listings.

We have found that 65% of our inventory for ages 8-12 was printed before 1985 and 35% of our inventory for ages 2-8 was printed before 1985. These books have been freely available to children for years, and no child has ever been harmed.

Last year we shipped 4500 orders to destinations all over the world. One of our orders came from a teacher in Iran. He ordered a set of 1981 children’s books. He had seen them and liked them and wanted them to be available for his students to borrow over vacation. We gladly filled his order, and he was so pleased to have the books for his students.

This year, with CPSC regulations against exporting most books manufactured before 1985, we could not fill that teacher’s order, unless perhaps we keep a $50,000 XRF gun on hand and determine that unlike most pre-1985 books this particular set might happen not to contain more than 600 ppm lead in *any component*.

It’s not possible to “prevent” events that never happen. Books don’t poison children. As a used bookseller, I see every kind of damage that children do to books. Children don’t eat books, but even if they did, they would be harmed by the enormous mass of paper that would need to be eaten long before any trace of lead in the inks could cause any harm.

Lead can be harmful, but lead is only potentially harmful when it’s an inappropriate amount in an inappropriate place. This blanket legislation for all children’s products, including educational products, misses the fact that an appropriate amount of lead in an appropriate place can really be a good thing for children. Lead can make a microscope work, it can build the connections in a child’s computer, it can be used in the connections that power components of an engineering or architectural building set, and it makes the tires on a children’s bicycle more durable and safer.

We need a law that takes real risks into account. This blanket legislation, which keeps books and all kinds of educational products away from children, is certainly wrong-headed. It’s time to repeal CPSIA and take the issue of Chinese lead and lead in children’s metal jewelry (the only known sources of harm) back to the drawing board.

We did have a problem, and it was time to do some pruning; it wasn’t time to clear-cut the forest of wonderful children’s educational products. "

" Can anyone provide an example of a child that has been hurt by lead in toys in the past 5 years? My Senators and Representative can't. I can't find anything on the internet. I believe the whole lead scare is just a boogeyman -- frightening, but not a real threat. The one child who died last year from lead poisoning would not have been protected by the CPSIA legislation. He ate a charm from his mother's bracelet. It wasn't a product intended for children at all. I'm puzzled over how Congress would jeopardize tens of thousands of small businesses, thrift, and resale stores over an imaginary threat like lead in the tire valve of a child's bike, or in the carburetor of a small ATV or in the zipper on a pair of pants. Maybe they were just hoping to provide more work for attorneys! "

" Perhaps you need to read the CPSIA before making judgment calls regarding Senator DeMints bill. Just how much revenue do you want the Federal Government to lose? How many more people do you want to have to lose their homes? How many more people do you want on Welfare? The CPSIA will close 80% of the clothing industry for children. Where are you going to find clothing for your children. We will be back to gunny sack dresses. Toys will be non-existent. I urge Representative Cobb-Hunter to actually read the bill before shooting off her mouth. "

" I respectively yet strongly disagree.

DeMint's proposal is sane and levelheaded. This law is not. Nobody in their right mind wants to see kids harmed. But the CPSIA is far over-reaching and targets items that were never a threat in the first place.

Like the saying goes, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Yes, there needs to be safety standards for kids' items, but they need to be reasonable. Don't put small business out of business as long as they are complying as best they can. Work with them and see it from their side of the fence.

And no, I don't own a business or even make children's items. "

" After reading this op ed... I wonder if Rep. Cobb-Hunter actually read the DeMint bill, or the CPSIA law? I know it's rare for representatives to actually read things anymore, but it might be helpful in this case.

The DeMint bill is about common sense. The CPSIA covers EVERYTHING, not just toys, made for kids under the age of 12. That means clothing, strollers, car seats, pencils, books, school desks, and a whole lot of of other things that have no lead or phthalates in them already, or that are covered by other safety laws. Take fabric and yarn, for instance. Natural fiber fabric and yarn isn't plastic, so it doesn't have phthalates in it, and it has no lead as well. The CPSIA would require a small business or crafter (or even a Grandma donating knit hats to the maternity ward at the hospital) to send their completed item to a lab, have it destroyed and tested to get a certificate that says something everyone already knows. There are no phthalates and lead in fabric. This testing can cost anywhere from $200-$2000 per item. Now I know the grandma donating hats can't afford to do this, and there are many many small businesses and crafters that aren't able to incur that kind of cost either.

The DeMint bill proposes common sense provisions like allowing crafters to use the certifications that their suppliers have to ensure their items are lead free. Basically, if 1,000 crafters are all using the same fabric to make a stuffed animal, why should they all individually have to test the same fabric?

He also proposes exempting thrift shops, garage sales, and other re-sellers of used items from testing. This quote is straight from his bill: "Goodwill, the Salvation Army and your local flea market were never the source of the product safety concerns encountered last year, and they won’t be in the future. They are good actors trying to provide Americans of modest means with value oriented products. They shouldn’t be subjected to tens of thousands of dollars in potential liability."

I urge Rep Cobb-Hunter to please read and do a little research before writing op ed pieces in the future. There are many ways we can keep our kids safe, and still allow small businesses (the backbone of our economy) to thrive and succeed. "

" I agree that our children need protection against lead and Phthalates. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is an attempt to address those issues, especially in light of all the recalls last year due to excess amounts of lead in imported toys.

Consider the following scenarios:

1) My sister-in-law sews dance costumes for her daughter's ballet troupe. Assuming all the outfits are made from the same materials, she must now send one costume to a testing lab for destructive testing. (Even if she is not charging for her labor, she is considered a manufacturer under the law.) Each component part must be tested, so the thread, buttons, lace, zippers, etc must be tested. The cost for each component is usually a separate charge so the final bill may be several hundred dollars. This assumes, of course, that she can find a lab that will test before the upcoming dance recital. Geographically, there are not a lot of testing labs and most are rather busy for some reason.

2) I have a book entitled "Gems from Mother Goose - They That Wash on Monday". The book was produced in the early 1900s. The book is not of high value, but is collectible because of the beautiful illustrations. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, books produced before 1985 may have lead in the ink. If I offer this book for sale, I would face being fined up to $100,000 if someone should happen to purchase it, test it for lead, and find high levels. (Now you could argue the the CPSC wouldn't go after me for selling the book, but the CPSIA gives power to each State to enforce the law. The attorney general in my state has already stated he'll go after anyone not following the law.)

3) I want to donate my children's used winter coats to my local thrift shop. They can accept these items and they are not required to test them. However, they are still responsible for knowing the lead and phthalates levels of the item and are liable under the law. Many thrifts shop have quit accepting children's items, period. They cannot afford to take the chance.

4) My neighbor makes childrens clothing to sell on eBay. She can buy materials and supplies from manufacturers that have already certified their products with a GCC(general certificate of conformity). Once she has
completed a piece, however, she cannot rely on the manufacturer GCC's, but must produce her own (once the stay on the requirement for certification passes), which requires expensive and destructive testing.

5) Grandma makes baby quilts for newborns at the local hospital and Grandpa makes painted wooden toy trains to selll at the annual church bazaar. Grandma is okay under the law, because yarn is considered exempt. Grandpa,
however, will need to quit painting his trains or have them tested (even if the paint can label says 'lead free').

6) Libraries across the nation are beginning to pull and dispose of their pre-1985 children's books because it isn't cost effective to test them. I agree that children shouldn't be given older books that possibly have lead in the ink, but my heart breaks at the cultural loss because many of those books are out of print.

The motives for passing the CPSIA are commendable. However, the tight language of the law doesn't allow for any wiggle room for the gray areas. The CPSA's hands are tied. If it could just be amended to:
- allow small producers to rely on the GCC's from manufacturers
- allow charities/libraries to exercise common sense without the threat of a large fine
- let collectors of older children's items sell them (with the proper "Not for use by children under 12" warnings of course) "

" Dear Ms. Cobb-Hunter,

As a woman, a mother of two (one special needs), and a teacher, I also believe that children are our most precious resource. I try to purchase handmade artisan-quality items whenever possible for them in order to avoid many of the chemical problems that come with so many mass-produced toys, not to mention items for adults. Given a choice between a handmade wooden train set finished with food-grade beeswax and a Spongebob or Hannah Montana, well, ANYTHING, I'll take the train set any day. Given the choice between something made in a sweatshop overseas and something made here in the US, very possibly by hand at home by another parent who wanted to create safer items for kids, I'll leave the sweatshop stuff on the racks without a second thought.

That's one reason that as a hobbyist trying to supplement my family's income while upgrading to "business," I enjoy dyeing clothes for all ages but mostly kids. I also prefer to support other artisans who make kids' items part-time or even full-time to help feed and clothe their families while spouses are out of work rather than send my money to big-box stores and overseas labor.

But the way the CPSIA was originally written, there isn't a small maker of kids' things ANYWHERE that can afford the hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of dollars worth of tests the law calls for, in many cases for items made from materials that don't contain lead in the first place. Cotton and wool and wood aren't lead-tainted and phthalate-laden. Lead-free clothing dyed with lead-free dyes aren't lead-laden. Many paints and finishes manufactured and/or applied overseas ARE, as are many plastics.

If the cost of testing drives the safer and higher-quality children's items out of the marketplace, all we will be left with is McCrud from the shelves of big box stores, made by the SAME companies who brought lead-tainted toys into the US and caused Congress's knee-jerk over-reaction in the first place. The CPSIA is well-intended, to be sure, but using nukes to kill mosquitoes not only is not the answer, but it won't make our children safer. It assumes that children's items ARE toxic if they're not tested, not because they FAILED any tests. This means the organic onesies I was hoping to begin dyeing as a safer alternative to the highly-processed cotton garments more widely available will now be priced out of the market, leaving that particular SAFER alternative unavailable. The toymakers who handmake some of the educational materials I use for homeschooling with unfinished wood (sustainably harvested, no less) won't be able to afford to have their batches of 2 or 3 items tested at up to $300 a pop for lead, and the phthalate testing will destroy the item tested, so anyone making one-of-a-kind items (like me) or small batches (like 3-5) simply can't comply with these laws and still be able to sell anything.

I'm one of the lucky ones: I can move more into teen and adult clothing. But stay-at-home moms and retirees who depend on this income to keep their homes in an already teetering economy are being decimated by the THOUSANDS by this law.

Senator DeMint is doing the responsible thing. He's not proposing a dismantling of the law. He's looking at using the common sense that SHOULD HAVE been applied when the law was being made in the first place. He's looking at the reality that many MANY cottage industries will be crushed by this law, that they're being punished even though they're making safer and higher-quality toys than the ones who caused the problem in the first place. He recognizes that small businesses weren't considered in the first place and he's looking to make a BETTER law that really WILL keep our children safer.

I don't appreciate the implication that small businesses don't have children's interests at heart simply because they want to stay in business doing what they love and what is important to them. Many of us ARE parents first and foremost. My children drive what I create, and I'm hardly the only crafter like that. To imply that our businesses and children's safety are incompatible is disingenuous at best and short-sighted, bordering on malicious, at worst. Short-sightedness is what created the badly-written law that is the CPSIA, and especially at this juncture in our nation's economy, it's the LAST thing any of us need from our lawmakers. "

" Endangering millions of children? How hyperbolic! This ill-written law that supposedly "protects" all these children was passed as a knee-jerk reaction to problems with enforcement of current laws. If Congress had merely adequately funded the Consumer Product Safety Commission and quit playing games with Bush over his appointment to fill the vacant seat on the commission, we would never have had the toy scare that started all this. High lead levels in paint were already illegal.

And now ignorant people assume that if Congress passed a law that claims to "protect" kids, it must by definition actually do it! That's textbook circular reasoning. If you actually read the law and get the facts about lead exposure, you realize that it would not make any one of us safer, and would do so at the cost of killing our children's product industry in the middle of a recession. The consequence? Even MORE of our toys will be made in China, where the quality control problems originated because of THEIR lax law enforcement.

Please, don't shut off your brain as soon as somebody speaks the words "for the children"! Not everything claimed to be "for the children" is good! "

" It is shortsighted and alarmist to suggest that slowing down the implementation of the CPSIA - a reactionary piece of legislation that does more economic harm than it could ever do good - "endangers the lives of millions of children." On the contrary, urging a more intelligent, logical, and well-crafted solution to the issue of child product safety is the responsible thing to do. If you want to know what will endanger the welfare of many, many children across the country, consider this: putting thousands of small businesses out of commission will have a direct and potentially lasting detrimental effect on the families - including children of all ages - whose wage-earners will find themselves without work and health insurance. Take away the earning power of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding, conscientious Americans (all because of the irresponsible actions of a few overseas manufacturers and their greedy US business partners), and there will be a domino effect. No job = no money. No money for health insurance; no money for food; no money for utilities, or rent/mortgage - you get the picture. In this economy, that dismal scenario is already playing out all across the nation. Why escalate the economic crisis - which is what will truly put children in peril - when the solution is to draft a better bill? Plain and simple.

No one is against child safety. Absolutely. No. One. "

" As a MOTHER, liberal and environmentalist, I have little political common ground with Senator DeMint. However, his proposed CPSIA amendment is RIGHT ON. Sadly, these comments by Rep. Cobb-Hunter must be either ill-informed or politically motivated, as anyone who has actually read the law (appallingly few) is shocked by its lack of scientific grounds, its sweeping and broadly imposed regulations and retroactive nature. It's not just about TOYS. The regulations are also imposed on BOOKS, BIKES, CLOTHES, absolutely every product intended for use by kids 12 and under. Libraries, schools, and thrift stores are among those hurt most squarely by this bill, as well as their patrons. Our books and clothes are not poisoning us. Small domestic producers are not the problem. If existing regulations had been properly enforced on mass-producers who moved their production overseas, we would have escaped the perils this legislation was a knee-jerk over-reaction to. "

" Respectfully, Rep. Cobb-Hunter does an excellent job of couching the actual facts in the argument "it's for the children." I am a mother of three and one of the people whose business is at risk because of the CPSIA. It is this particular spin that I find truly dangerous (and not a little patronizing), creating or perpetuating fear in the marketplace. Please use facts, not fear, as your argument.

The fact is that in the period of time from 1996 to the present, the instance of elevated lead levels in children has decreased by over 80% (CDC statistic). While there is cause to be concerned about toys painted with lead paint, these are not a culprit in a large number of lead poisonings; in fact, I believe that there have been none related to the 2007-08 recalls (those deaths that did sadly occur were the result of ingestion of charms). The main culprit? Lead in older buildings.

The CPSIA paints a broad a swath of legislation over many industries, many of whom do not pose any inherent risk to America's children. The Act covers books, bicycles, clothing, blankets, bibs, and - yes - even toys. In today's economic climate, consignment and thrift stores are at risk as well. While everyone is trying to stretch their dollars to feed, clothe and house their children, many of us depend on these stores. Congressmen will tell you that these stores are exempt, they are, in fact, not. They do not have the testing requirement, but they cannot sell anything with total lead levels over the limit. If they do, they're the party liable. How can they know this without testing? Across the country, consignment and thrift stores are pulling these items to limit liability at exactly the time when they are needed most.

The testing costs mandated by the CPSIA are prohibitive for most of the smaller businesses. The group Public Citizen has quoted prices for lead testing of $50; this is absolutely not the case. The costs of testing far exceed this. Indeed, some manufacturers are finding that the cost of testing their full lines will erase any annual profit. Many small businesses are finding that the few accredited labs won't even work with smaller businesses.

Phthalates testing ranges in the $350 range per test. The science on the effects of phthalates is not even conclusive. Evidence points to a potential cause for concern, so further study is necessary. Phthalates are found in flexible plastics; yet Congress generalized, so those of us who use cotton fabrics for "child care articles" (specifically, in this instance) bibs and blankets) will have to test cotton fabrics for these plastics additives. Far greater exposure comes from items in our homes not intended for children, namely personal hygiene products, plastic bottles, and cosmetics.

This is not, as implied by the article, a cost vs. human life issue. When looking at the actual risk of harm, there was a very small one in the first place. Yet the adverse economic effects place far more children at risk as their parents lose their livlihoods as a direct result of this law.

I applaud Sen. DeMint for standing up for small business and for individual. His common-sense approach is a beacon of reason in this quagmire. "