New regulations regarding children's clothing--devastating.

[CoffeeCat]

I found this very interesting. Apparently, new regulations regarding
children's toys and clothing go into effect in February.

The new law requires that all products sold for children 12 and under--including
toys and clothes--must be tested for lead and other harmful plastics. No, we
don't want lead in our children's toys. It's positive that the government is
being proactive.

However, there are serious unintended consequences from these laws. Shops
that sell used children's clothing and charitable organizations (such
as The Salvation Army, Goodwill) will not be able to afford these tests.
They are incredibly expensive. The shops will close and the charities
are prepared to stop selling children's clothing.

Used kid's clothing is how many people are able to afford to dress their
children. Clothing is expensive.

These laws favor the big corporations and will dismantle stores that sell
used children's clothing. This is a big deal for parents.

This may seem like a small issue, but with the economy in the tank--I think this
is serious. Suddenly, parents will be forced to pay "full price" for kids clothes--and
can no longer get cheap clothing anywhere--even on Ebay or garage sales.

As far as I'm concerned, this leaves many families in crisis.

Article discussing this issue:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-thrift2-2009jan02,0,2083247.story

[LeftyMom]

1. Shit. I hardly buy ANY new clothes for LK.

Not much point when he'll outgrow them in weeks.

That'll do a number on my budget.

[CoffeeCat]

2. I know....

My kids are 7 and 8. They outgrow clothes so fast, so it makes no sense to buy $75 sweaters from Gymboree.

Plus, in the summer, the need "play" clothes that aren't expensive--that they can run around and get dirty in.
I'm supposed to buy brand-new clothes that will be ruined in one afternoon?

Also, shoes are expensive, and if kids have a growth spurt--they outgrow them in a month or two! I buy 2 pairs
of tennis shoes for each of my kids, in one year. At least!

I mainly shop the clearance racks at Walmart and Target--and the consignment shops. I've bought some cool stuff from Ebay.

I just can't imagine how many families this will affect. The law takes effect in one month. That doesn't leave a lot of
time for parents to stock up at Goodwill or Salvation Army. And if you're out of a job or on a tight budget due to the
economy, you really can't go out and buy 2-3 year's worth of clothes.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[LeftyMom]

5. Maybe more people will go to Freecycle/ Craigslist/ Yardsales/ etc

LK's the same age (he's 7 now, turning 8 this spring) and I can't count the number of things he's worn once or twice and then they don't fit anymore.

He's got name brand everything, and other than shoes and his coat none of it cost me more than $8. Most of it was less than $4.

[Liberal_in_LA]

19. "$75 sweaters from Gymboree". HA! I always wonder who pays sky high prices for stuff the kid will

grow out of within a few months.

[XemaSab]

3. Lead is not a plastic

n/t

[CoffeeCat]

10. I never said it was...

The article states that the laws require that these children's products be
tested for lead AND plastics.

...and that's what I said.

What's the problem?

[RC]

13. Read it again.

"...must be tested for lead and other harmful plastics."
That's the problem.

[CoffeeCat]

14. I think it's obvious...

...that I--or anyone else with a pulse--knows very well that lead is NOT plastic.

Yes, I shouldn't have put "other' in that sentence.

I think it's a little silly to shine a big spotlight on a petty mistake.

Why do some people on DU have an incessant need to point fingers, "Oh look!! You
just made a grammatical error! Lead isn't a plastic! You just split an infinitive!
Is that a participle I see dangling?"

For the love of Pete....should I hire an editor to peruse my DU posts?

[LynzM]

4. Hi TwoSparkles...

I've been reading about this on this blog (not mine):

www.electricboogaloo.net/wordpress

Basically, it's not just clothes or toys, but *anything* marketed toward kids, from what I can understand.

Please read her articles (today's and two days' ago) and help spread the word. This is a ridiculous, knee-jerk response to the issue, which puts the burden of testing squarely where it does *not* belong, on the small businesses, not the suppliers of the raw goods/materials.

[Deja Q]

9. Agreed. The burden has to be on those that MAKE the stuff.

I suppose it's a good thing the US doesn't manufacture clothing; one less responsibility with a crocodile tear-laden law. :eyes:

[brentspeak]

6. Follow the money

See who was behind including children's clothing in the new law.

[CoffeeCat]

12. And the fact that children's clothing is included in this law...

...is outrageous. Has lead ever been found in children's clothing???

You're right. Some company wanted a leg up--and they're using this legislation to put
their competitors out of business.

Interesting isn't it. Our lawmakers didn't care about lead in Chinese-made junk for years.

Now, that they finally do---their misplaced regulations benefit large corporations by snuffing
out used clothing shops and charities that sell used kid's clothing.

Isn't it also interesting that this is practically a ban on all used clothing shops that sell kids clothes---
during a time in our economy when people are probably shopping in these stores more often.

It's like they're tightening the noose around us... Lose your job? Is your 401k down by 40 percent?
Trying to save money while the economy goes down the toilet? Awww....too bad you now have to buy
all of your kids clothes at full price, from the major corporations. Sorry!

How could they do this to families...especially now???

[Blaze Diem]

7. Isn't the FDA supposed to be monitoring what is brought into this country?

The toxic fabrics wouldn't exist if they had been doing their job all along.
Thanks to NAFTA we have a Nation full of toxic food, clothing, toys etc., that each of us is now suppose to determine whether to keep or to burn.

Thanks a bunch.
Can I still have a Saturday morning garage sale? Or will the toxic police pay me a visit?

[lonestarnot]

8. So what, they can't give the shit away? Is there a law against that? That would be real cheap!

That's what I want them to do with the two truck loads of stuff I took last week. I want them to give it to people who can use it, not sell it!

[emlev]

15. Give it away and accept donations of money.

That's what I was thinking. Haven't read the law, but there are lots of situations where "suggested donations" get around laws like this.

[RC]

11. I don't believe they can retroactively apply this to used clothes and toys.

Are people going to go through the closets and toss everything and buy new certified replacement toys and clothes? Thrift stores test for lead? Yeah, right. Try to enforce that.
Don't think so. This is for new stuff. Someone is misreading something.

[Realityhack]

16. Wrong. Read the link.

"These groups say the law should be changed so that it applies to products made after Feb. 10, not sold after that date.

That would take action by Congress, however, because the Consumer Product Safety Commission's general counsel has already determined that the law applies retroactively, said commission spokesman Scott Wolfson."

[satya]

17. The owner of a local children's resale store says this will put her out of business:

On Feb. 10, barring some dramatic change in a new law, Powell's entire 5,000-item inventory will be considered a "banned hazardous substance" and may have to be chucked.

That's because the stuff in her store has never been tested for lead. A law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in August, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, requires all products for kids under age 12 to be tested for lead or pulled from the shelves. Even if it was made before the law passed.

Powell figures the cost of lead-testing her entire store would exceed the value of the merchandise. Single tests can run anywhere from $50 into the hundreds — pointless if what you sell is $7.99 used denim toddler skirts or $9.98 plush toys. So Blinky Bug Lovey Blanket ($14.95), and everything else, will become hazardous waste instead.

<snip>

It's the toughest lead standard in the world. And it will apply to children's items made anywhere out of most anything, from cloth to wood to paper.

Any store with children's products will either have to test them or pull them, says the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

In public comments to the commission, one lawyer pointed out this means "literally hundreds of millions of units in inventory and billions of dollars in value" will effectively be declared contraband.

link to Seattle Times column

[Wednesdays]

18. Is it possible there's some false outrage generated in the press?

The bill was sponsored by a Dem, and has 106 co-sponsors, all but a few of them Democrats. Could it be the press is being handed a slanted interpretation of the bill? I hardly think the Dems are all for shutting down charities and mom & pop businesses in favor of huge corporations. Then again, maybe it's the DLC at work again.

I have to hit the sack now, but maybe the rest of you might be able to dig up some info on the bill's sponsors, and also read the entire text of the law. The bill is rather long and I've skimmed over what I could, and I couldn't find anything about forcing sellers to test items for lead, only the manufacturers.

Here's the info on the bill:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4040

[LeftyMom]

20. I hate to tell you this, but lawmakers routinely vote for laws they haven't read.

And quite a few of them seem to be too stupid to understand what they do read. I wouldn't assume a law was well-intended, let alone well-written, based on who voted for it.