The coming ban on thrift store clothes

This is completely nuts - my children will be naked ;-). Good catch, Rod.

Sharon

I just got off the phone to my congressman's office. Go thou and do likewise.

Wow - - this post brings back forgotten memories. My mom used to sometimes buy clothes at the local thrift shop, and donate used clothing to them that she purchased elsewhere and I outgrew. Then, later, she started buying my clothes at factory outlet stores. By that time, I was forced to wear embarassing clothes in junior high school - - not such a good memory.

I agree that this regulation is outrageous, too bad I don't have a real Congressman.

"If they can't afford new clothes for them, they have no business having children in the first place." My mother would support the ban but I agree, it is pretty silly.

I can't believe it applies to things that have already been manufactured or made.
We are such a society of overreaction. Next we will be required to wrap kids in lead-free, non-chemical, environmentally friendly bubble wrap.

Peterk, thanks for that link--it includes easy ways to contact one's Congress members at the bottom of the page.

And it makes the situation even more outrageous--not only are used children's clothes sellers coming under attack, but small, local, crunchy businesses that make handmade children's goods.

Perhaps the cardboard box industry should be tested, since that was my 8-month-old son's favorite present this Christmas.

I'm saddened that this applies to handmade toys, too. I *love* buying my kids hand carved wooden play things from a local mom & pop, and that business WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS if this law passes.

It's just ridiculous. The idea is so preposterous, I can't even believe that it's being considered as a law.

Being one of those who STILL doesn't know who her senator is, this is hard for me to do. I wonder why the responsibility is on the resellers and not the manufacturers.

One of the ways I get money back is by selling toys my daughter has outgrown at at local consignment shop. I really would hate to think about throwing away all the toys she's outgrown in her life.

We need to preemptively exclude second-hand things from this entirely. That's just silly. If it was legal to sell, it should be legal to resell.

As for handmade and smaller manufacturers, they should just have to get written confirmation that the they use materials do not contain lead.

Oh so true, Reaganite. Stop the excessive nannyism, libs!

I predict the creation of an illegal underground market for used and handmade items.

As Erin Manning, who sent the link to me, writes, "Just what we need in a bad economy: no way for parents to buy affordable used clothing for their kids."

Well, that's sort of how the New Deal worked, so maybe it really is the Great Depression II.

I wrote to three people in Washington, and asked for blanket exemptions on resold things, along with exemptions based on using materials already certified as legal in the US, perhaps with revenue and unit-based cutoffs.

Damn them from wanting to protect children from unsafe goods dumped here by foreign companies. What could they be thinking.

They were probably thinking "Here's a great way to help our pals in the textile industries!" Exemptions for secondhand goods and small businesses are fairly standard. I'm skeptical that this was some well-intentioned boo-boo.

And if he had vetoed the bill you would have complained that he didn't want to protect the chirren. a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation

No, I'm a small government guy. I would have been pleasantly surprised, really, to see any politician stand up to a wave of public hysteria.

There appears to be more to the story. The CPSC stated that children's clothing was generally not covered by the act in the following letter.

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/321.pdf

"The law...mandates that all products sold for those age 12 and younger...be tested for lead and phthalates..."

It's not widely known, but those compounds we call "phthalates" were actually discovered by this guy.

This is nucking futz.

It's like the slaughterhouse regulations. Only the big boys can pay, but abuse goes on.

Next they'll want to test kids' clothes for second-hand smoke, and ban hand-me-downs.

If they regulated publics schools in this way, they'd have to close them--the bad ones ruin the mind more than any residual lead.

Time for some civil disobedience/black market activity . . .

Off and on I have shopped at Thrift store my entire adult life. And I have a lok of trophies to show for it. In fact, buying there and re-selling o eBay is how I retired a six figure medical bill. That said, it's not true that thrift store as a whole are funding charities. Many, in fact most unless they are linked to a non-pprofit, are straight out resale stores pure and simple.

Obviously if it's the Salvation Army, Kidney Fund, Goodwill---charity. Others buy in bulk from stores that are charity based but flooded with too much inventory, etc. No larger point here' I just know since for 4 1/2 years between 2001-2006, I was combing them city wide for inventory. (Ask about that 50 cent scarf that got over $300, the $40 total for 8 dresses that sold total for over $5000.)

Hold on, y'all, Daniel has a point: this legislation was a response to a real problem, not nanny-statism. It was just badly written. Don't assume that because the law was poorly executed in the drafting that the problem it set out to correct wasn't a real one.

No one is arguing the problem, Rod. The intention is, as you say, a good one. But putting this into actual practice seems just a bit ham handed.

Also, in response to the recent posts; I don't believe that people who write laws for a living, with years of experience under their belts, just 'accidently' write a law that is so poorly worded as to allow unforeseen and unintended results such as this.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the explanation 'it had good intentions, it was just poorly executed' does not sit right with me.

The thrift-stores move out, and the Wall Marts move in.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd not dismiss my musings out of hand.

I am not one to support conspiracy theories, but I think that this is no accident,businesses want to force people to simply have to buy new stuff. The Lords of the new corporate feudalism are just fine with thrift stores and small,boutique manufacturers going under.

he real problem of course is China,but the traitors that run this country would never make their new masters unhappy and besides they are making to much money pissing all over the American public. Free trade advocates are traitors and part and parcel to the business climate that brought us the sub prime collapse and all the rest. I think it is really time to raise hell, I have had enough with stupid government and rapacious businesses and their on going screwing of America. I am really beginning to hate America,this whole damn country is one big scam.

More government passing the buck to the taxpayers for their failure to do their job. So if you have a garage sale, can you give your toys and clothes away? Also, to those of you who are Walmart bashers.
I suggest you go into your J.C. Penneys, Kohls, Sears, Meijers, target or any other major retailer and check the tags. Just like walmart they are made in either China or SriLanka. Let's be fair!

This is a fairly sweeping law that covers a lot of area. There were many hearings and discount retailers like Wal=Mart aren't any happier about the regulations than the thrift store lobby (and there is, btw, a thrift store lobby).

Thrift stores do create a problem when it comes to product safety. A lot of goods that are unsafe are sold there--think changing tables, cribs, car seats--that may be been recalled but the recall never trickles down to the thrift store. In addition, hard goods are usually sold without packaging, and thus no safety instructions or even instructions on how to use.

It's likely that the never intended to to include clothes, but now there's uncertainty. This happens with every piece of legislation and doesn't require a conspiracy orchestrated by Wal-Mart or a corporate cabal.

As the CPSC points out, small producers and thrifts were already covered by existing regulations. I would guess that many have been operating outside the law. Presently under the final rule, retailers aren't responsible for certification of goods, so thrifts would not have to certify clothing. This is just about as bad as HIPAA implemenation wise. Too many lawyers and conultants out to make a buck by scaring people half to death.

Hold the Phone, Folks. There is a small solution, even if the crazy law is passed and enforced:

Seamstresses can take used adult clothing and re-style it to fit children. Call it Re-Fashioning. See http://nikkishell.typepad.com/wardroberefashion/ for ideas.

If you got the skills, this would be an awesome loophole.

I AM SO UPSET!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHEN I FOUND OUT I WAS DRIVING TO WORK AND I SO GLAD NO ONE WAS IN MY CAR WITH ME WITH THE WAY I WAS REACTING....I THINK MY BLOOD PRESSURE SHOT OUT MY EARS........I AM A SINGLE MOTHER AND BOTH MY CHILDREN'S CLOTHES AT LEAST 80% COME FROM CONSIMENT SHOPS....LET'S STOP BUYING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES AND PUT OUR PEOPLE BACK TO WORK......I AM STILL FUMING AND HAVE TOLD EVERYONE I WORK WITH(LARGE CORP)...WE ARE READY TO PROTEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT NEEDS TO STOP THIS INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I coordinate our church's consignment sale. We strive to check our items for anything recalled and encourage our consignors to check also. I have contacted everyone on our email list, urging them to contact the CPSC, along with their elected officials in Washington. The rumbles I'm hearing through connections with other consignment owners and my own calls is that an amendment is in the works and could be announced by Friday. This law is a good example of wonderful intentions being buried in bureaucratic procedures.

I doubt there is a business owner anywhere who would want to expose a child to lead poisoning. We all know how dangerous it can be. However, there's a difference in creating safeguards and guidelines and shutting down an entire industry. We have a lot of families that would not be able to clothe their children if it weren't for our sale and others like it.

I hope some of our leaders in Washington listen to their constituents and get this law amended quickly.

This is going to hurt everyone, and having read Jon W's link, the big issue, apparently, is the problem that it's unit testing instead of component testing.

People should be able to assemble items for children if they can demonstrate that the items they assemble them out of are non-toxic. For clothing, this is obviously....clothing is assembled from cloth, stitching, and maybe some sort of fastener. And then dyed. Manufactures should be be able to say 'This clothing has been tested, this dye has been tested, etc' and, presto, all their products are safe.

That is what I assumed the problem was, that very small companies couldn't afford the testing, which is why I suggested having the producers of such materials do the testing and pass along a proof they are safe. Test as high as possible in the chain. If we did that, and had an assumption that all products produced prior to the law going into effect are safe unless explicitly stated otherwise by the FDA or whoever.

However, apparently, what manufacturers have to do is take examples of each type of children's product and have them tested. Which is just flat out insane. Secondhand stores can't even do that at all (How are they going to find duplicates of their products?), and any sort of bespoke or custom manufacturing is going to have problems also.

In other words, it sounds like a moderately bad idea, but is actually a very very bad idea because of the very stupid implementation of it. It's going to result in very expensive tests of every single product produced. So if a company make 500 identical-in-materials children books, they're going to have to pay to test every one, instead of just testing the paper and ink like any sane law would make them do.

The following paragraphs are quoted from a National Association of Manufacturing petition asking that the current law be reconsidered in favor of component testing (the document is a PDF and can be found by Googling the phrase 'NAM Petition'):

"The CPSIA imposes a limit on lead in substrates of “any part” of a children’s product, defined as a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 and under. This means that unless otherwise exempted, the manufacturer of a children’s cotton sweatshirt with a painted zipper, a drawstring, an appliqué and the mandatory care label would have to test the following components: the sweatshirt material (i.e., the fabric and sewing thread), the zipper, the paint on the zipper, the drawstring, any appliqué on the sweatshirt, the plastic tip on the drawstring and the care label. A manufacturer of shoes would have to test the following components, if accessible: the soles, uppers, metal shanks or heels, grommets around shoelaces,
and the laces and tips. A manufacturer of a child’s upholstered chair might have to test the finish, the wood, plastic and/or metal substrate, the stuffing, innersprings, bolts and rivets, fabric
and other components for lead. A manufacturer of a child’s computer or educational aid would have to test the glass screen, screws or fasteners, the plastic housing, the circuitry, wiring, solder
and other components, and the electrical cord and plug. A manufacturer of a silver-plated piggy bank would have to test the underlying metal and sterling silver plating material. A publisher of
books, magazines, newspapers or other paper-based printed materials for children, such as flash cards, posters, bookmarks, worksheets, or menus, would have to test such components as the paper, cardboard, bindings, glues, laminates and inks, notwithstanding the specific exclusion for such printing under 16 CFR 1303, et. seq.

It is readily apparent from these examples that a great many of these materials, components or products are not likely to pose a risk of lead exposure in reasonably foreseeable use and abuse situations. If the CPSC does not act promptly to exclude materials and products
that do not pose a genuine risk, hundreds of thousands of materials and products may be banned or will have to be tested for lead unnecessarily and at great expense, despite the fact that no laboratories are duly accredited to do lead substrate testing and no comprehensive screening methods have yet been approved by the CPSC staff for such testing. In addition, there are currently an inadequate number of accredited test laboratories to perform the testing under existing regulations and standards already being required."

This goes WAY beyond sane testing regulations, in my opinion. Bear in mind that the cost to test each of these components ranges between $150 and $4000 per component, and that, as the NAM petition points out, there are no where near enough labs certified to conduct these tests.

The CPSC has made a clarifying statement. Looks like the rule will not apply to resale shops.

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html

So What do you think about, there is a huge distraction going on with the focus of the issue being turned to the RE-sale Stores Liable in the testing of products, When actually it should fall on the Shoulders of the Manufactures, not the Wholesaler's, Not the Retailer because by the time they purchase the product for Re-sale it should have already been LEGAL FOR MARKET.
THIS IS A FARCE, knowing this I see proof, of INTENTION.
Here's the Larger part of this Story, think about this...
Wonder how they are going to stimulate the economy?
The Outlawing of Resale, has far reaching implication's, it forces a select sector of the population, young family's and those supporting anyone age 12 and under, into only being able to buy retail. Further separating the have's from the have not's. The only thing GREEN about this plan is in REVENUE. It's not any different than mandating G.P.S. on cars in order to track our miles driven for taxation, something they want to do here in Oregon, when they, could simply require us to drive to D.M.V. annually and have an employee of D.M.V. verify our mileage and record it. Another mandate by the confines of bureaucracy on a select sector of the population.
Welcome to ONE WORLD ORDER..

Well isnt that just great news. Some fool decides where I can buy my childrens clothes due to lead and other toxins YET our toy manufacturers can make toys overseas use lead paint and all kinds of horrible toxins,,,,which by the way the consumer knows nothing about,,,brings them back into the U.S. and sells them for the same high prices,,,,even though they are being made in another country at a very reduced cost to the company,,,and this practice is perfectly fine. Who is in charge here???? I find this news dispicable. Why do these same people not go after the Fisher-Price folks and others like them rather than the used clothing industry?????? Obviously Fisher-Price does not require testing of their toys either as they make it right through to the shelf for the consumer so a child can suck on all of the lead paint the child can consume. Is this because Fisher-Price is a major company and this same group of folks can not fight against them? Lets pick on the small business owner. How many other toy companies are doing this? Have you shopped at Walmart lately,,,,try to find something "made in America" there that has to follow the rules. I could not even purchase socks there because they are made in Pakistan or Viet Nam. Now how do I know what they use in their materials??