I think it’s one very cool step in the right direction.

I think they just might be calling Congress’ bluff.  Congress has been saying not to bother them, the CPSC has ‘full authority.’

I expect Congress to have a hissy fit over this demonstrating what others have been saying all along- Congress, and not the CPSC, HAS to fix this mess.

I think USPIRG/Public Citizen/consumer’s Union et al will sue, and they may win, showing, yet again, the CPSC is right and Congress wrong, that Congress MUST fix this.

So it’s exciting, but it’s more like a blink, or a first down, not a touch down.

Hm, I saw this as a step towards fixing the legislation. Nancy Nord in her letter to congress called it a “time out” - time to step back and reasses. If there was enough evidence that this was turning into a failure, there is certainly enough evidence to approach it more thoughtfully the second time around, with input from the right people.

I also don’t know that it will put out the fire under our collective butts. So many vocal advocates from Rick Woldenberg to the HTA to the smallest etsy seller now can be a part of the process of fixing this. Somehow they don’t seem the types to walk away because the tourniquet seems to be holding.

What will be interesting is to see if, say, a US-made zipper in a pair of pjs is loaded with lead, whether it will be the manufacturer or the zipper maker who ends up accountable. If manufacturers need start charging more for better quality products made from components they can rely on and not garbage from China, then you know? That’s the price we pay. That ain’t bad.

Sorry for the novel.

Do appreciate the level of thinking you’re bringing to this as always.

Although I’m generally a very Gestalt thinker, I’m easily blinded by momentary victory. Thanks for pointing out these nuances.

I still think this is what had to happen. As it’s being interpreted the code was simply ridiculous and did not really serve the intentions of the authors or the advocates for protecting children from lead and phthalates. I don’t think the CPSC’s current intention is simply to hold it off for a year. I believe some sort of amendment or re-interpretation will have to be developed. Either some sort of source certification (e.g. so crafters can buy from credible manufacturers and not have to test everything themselves) or something else that’s not going to crush small businesses. If nothing else, I don’t think our current administration would allow such a thing (call me naively optimistic).

As we work out the glitches of this singular piece of legislation, let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: better regulation of chemicals in general. The Toxic Substances Control Act is sorely outdated and ineffective. The US General Accounting Office last week said it is one of the top 3 issues needing to be addressed in our country right now. The Kid Safe Chemicals Act could be the change we need, but we need everyone’s input so we don’t re-live this CPSIA fiasco.

Healthy Child is hosting a phone conference with EWG to discuss this vital legislation on Feb 19 at 10PST. Watch our blog (http://www.HealthyChild.org/blog) for more details.

Thanks again Jennifer and Jeremiah! Your blog rocks!

You’re right, it is only one step on the road to fixing the CPSIA, and it does leave manufacturers on the hook. For those of us who have every intention of selling product that is “safe” as described by the law, however, it is still a welcome relief at the moment. It means that XRF, vendor certification and component testing are all fair means of achieving compliance while our Congress finds a real fix for the law itself.

Thanks for this level-head and realistic post. I agree that this is a step in the right direction. Everyone should be encouraged for the simple fact that they have heard our cries (and cheers). While we can all have a great big sigh of relief, that sigh needs to get us recharged, re-energized and ready to fight some more...harder than ever. It isn’t over by any means and we are still under the law. But with the voice of optimism I say that we can win this thing!

Actually, I’m bummed. It takes the teeth right out of the order, and I liked the fact that it was a tough piece of legislation. It was the first time the government had really made a strong step toward ensuring the safety of children’s products… and now, because of backlash from those who stand to profit, it’s essentially gone for the next year.

Which is not to say that I’m against “those who stand to profit.” As I said in an earlier post, I sympathize and don’t wish to see anyone go out of business who is producing a safe product. But I also don’t want to give people excuses “just” because they’re not big business. I do think home businesses/craftspeople need to adhere to the same standards as big business-- and those standards should be high.

I still feel the onus should be on the suppliers, however. There should be suppliers who certify that their products are lead-free, pthalate-free, etc., so children’s manufacturers can buy from those suppliers and know they’re producing a safe end product.

Sen. DeMint from SC is proposing some smart legislation in the upcoming week.  He’s using common sense to make things more understandable and still keep safety.  You can find it here.

Asking our own local senators to support this reform will help get things clearer and not just postpone the confusion and panic.

Thanks for weighing in, everyone. I agree the new administration has a strong head of steam for change and appreciate deputyheadmistress’ insight that this may be an attempt by CPSC to force Congress’ hand.

It is very odd to me though to have to see some organizations that are pushing for literal interpretation of this bill as agents of positive change. If anything their tactics typically ramp up the fears that anything less than full enforcement of what’s out there (the current CPSIA) will be endangering our children. My concern is that this makes modifying the legislation more difficult, not less; what will their course of action be if the legislation is reformed to be “more lenient”?

Our primary goal with the post was to point out that it puts creators in a difficult position in relation to the law. I agree with USPIRG and others that selective enforcement is a corrupting influence and not the outcome we should expect from a strong democracy.

I’m hopeful that Congress will act on this soon and take small businesses and crafters out of limbo.

Jenna, also agree with you about supplier certification. The CPSC has been put in the ludicrous position of defending the idea that components used in combination pose a greater risk than they do in isolation, which is true in extremely isolated cases and can certainly be accommodated by some more nuanced rules. That’s the best way to help small businesses and crafters get safer and survive.