If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KOTV)   New law mandates testing of all imported toys for toxins, but exempts domestic made ones. Happy Fun Ball bounces in approval   (newson6.com) divider line 63
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1425 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2008 at 4:47 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-12-28 04:28:20 PM
May as well get this out of the way:

Don't taunt happy fun ball.
 
2008-12-28 04:49:51 PM
yay now cheap foreign crap can cost as much as domestic crap.
 
2008-12-28 04:51:19 PM
There are toys that aren't made in China?
 
2008-12-28 04:51:31 PM
I thought that most toys were foreign made anyway?
 
2008-12-28 04:53:40 PM
because we have been having so much trouble with domestic toys...
 
2008-12-28 04:54:50 PM
Happy Fun Ball Contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
 
2008-12-28 04:55:16 PM
www.instructables.com
 
2008-12-28 04:55:18 PM
I that like the requirements that turn efficient foreign build cars to gas guzzlers while slapping a 25% tariff on them so that Big Three cars still look reasonable?

/I exagerate
//But only a little
 
2008-12-28 04:57:55 PM
Toys are made domestically?
 
2008-12-28 04:59:28 PM
It is legal in 16 states?
 
2008-12-28 05:03:21 PM
Government intervention will only destroy toys as we know them, making them expensive by complicating the production process with silly regulation. The government can't do anything right, do you want toys designed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid!$?

The free market will sort out all of these problems the most efficient way possible.

If your kid gets brain damage from lead, or dies because the toy is dangerous, don't buy that toy anymore! If enough kids are killed or permanently disabled, everyone will stop buying and that company will go out of business, who needs more punishment than that!

Bottom line is, the market will sort this stuff out, the market solves all problems.
 
2008-12-28 05:04:47 PM
Intelligent legislation once again loses out to the interests of the elite. What a surprise.
 
2008-12-28 05:05:12 PM
Bets on when the WTO will shoot this one down (as they rightfully should)?
 
2008-12-28 05:05:38 PM
Wait, doesn't the story say the exact opposite of the headline?

And, what's worse, she says local products like hand-made booties will actually be considered illegal to sell.
 
2008-12-28 05:08:55 PM
Hats off to broad-stroke guv'mint ink pens. Guess it's easier than having to put some research, time and effort into a new law.

Germany has some of the highest safety standards in the world for the products used and bought by their citizens. Airplanes are properly maintained, kiddie rides are safe, blah blah blah. So the goods Germany approve should get carte blanche for the USA market.

But nooooooooo....

/yes, my wife is German
//and very tasty too
 
2008-12-28 05:14:28 PM
There are no toxics in Bag-o-Glass.
 
2008-12-28 05:21:48 PM
Does this mean we can start making Lawn Darts again?!?

/weeps with joy
//those WERE domestic, right?
 
2008-12-28 05:23:36 PM
So, who actually read TFA? Not subby, it seems. Says nothing about domestic toy companies, and even points out that locally produced goods, like baby-booties, would now be illegal without testing.
 
2008-12-28 05:27:51 PM
Soon to be the only toy allowed:

www.folklore.org

And don't even think about N-Strike.
 
2008-12-28 05:30:32 PM
All Apologies: The criminals who put melamine in the dairy supply will most likely be executed. The example the Chinese government is making out of those criminals will be more than enough to ensure the safety of all toys and food products coming out of China. Any further legislation or regulations is unnecessary, and will hurt more people than it will potentially help.
 
2008-12-28 05:37:38 PM
2xhelix: May as well get this out of the way:

Don't taunt happy fun ball.


I see my work here is done.
 
2008-12-28 05:46:01 PM
Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is also being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.

Yes, unfortunately, that is a repeat.
 
2008-12-28 06:03:03 PM
2/10/2009=National Bankruptcy Day

http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-cpsc-activism-and-what-you-can-d o / (new window)
 
2008-12-28 06:03:50 PM
my html is weak today
 
2008-12-28 06:05:32 PM
n2.cdn.spikedhumor.com

Too easy.
 
2008-12-28 06:34:11 PM
While the article is more or less correct, subby's headline is wrong. The law applies to domestic toys as well, and is going to seriously affect all manufacturers of anything used by people under the age of 12. Christodd2627 posted links to the relevant details above.

Basically, everything has to be tested for lead, no matter how unlikely it is that the item will contain lead, and no matter how unlikely it is that someone will put it in their mouth. Apparently this is going to be a problem not only for the old retired guys who make wooden toys to sell at craft fairs and the "work at home moms" who sell handknit diaper covers online.

It apparently is also going to affect things like tires for children's bicycles (apparently bike tire valves use a brass alloy that has a fair amount of lead in it) ballpoint pens (ditto) and will make it impossible to sell science kits for school use. Even though 10 year olds don't normally spend a lot of time sucking on their bicycle tires.

Nice work, Congress & Senate. You're doing a heckuva job.
 
2008-12-28 06:51:06 PM
Oh, and kid's clothes. Those all have to be tested also. Even though clothes normally don't have lead in them. Except of course for lead aprons for X-Ray use, which will now be illegal!

The trouble is that the required testing will be very expensive, and in many cases, pointless. Lots of US companies think they will go out of business, whence comes that line about "National Bankruptcy Day" that Christodd2627 mentioned.
 
2008-12-28 06:57:36 PM
Ugg, I know this law has been talked about a lot in knitting forums I frequent recently just because of how it's worded. It will do some serious damage to the hand knit market (baby blankets, etc). And trust me, there are some angry, angry hand knitters out there at the moment.

Anyone know if the law reads in such a way that an already approved item, such as yarn, can be used to create another item that would then already be approved of by the law? The legal-ese of the law gives me a headache.
 
2008-12-28 06:58:10 PM
I normally approve of consumer protection measures, but this one is ridiculously written. It affects two people I know (the work from home crafter types) and they're going to lose a source of income because of it. Instead of having the raw materials tested (this wood is certified lead free! as is this fabric! as is this paint!, etc), they require lead testing at every step along the way for every separate model. So if you've got 15 dolls made exactly the same way, but with different outfits and names, you'd have to shell out $1000 for testing each of the 15 models. Utter stupidity.
 
2008-12-28 06:59:29 PM
Tachikoma: Ugg, I know this law has been talked about a lot in knitting forums I frequent recently just because of how it's worded. It will do some serious damage to the hand knit market (baby blankets, etc). And trust me, there are some angry, angry hand knitters out there at the moment.

Anyone know if the law reads in such a way that an already approved item, such as yarn, can be used to create another item that would then already be approved of by the law? The legal-ese of the law gives me a headache.


No. Knitting the yarn into something is considered "manufacturing" and therefore every "model" of "whatever" needs to be tested.
 
2008-12-28 07:04:27 PM
mesmer242 you are right about the testing each "model"-- this also means that if you knit two sweaters from the exact same yarn, but one is a pullover and the other is a cardigan, each one must be tested seperately. What a waste!
 
2008-12-28 07:09:42 PM
i'm a product development manager for a luxury home goods manufacturer, and i can tell you that a lot of major department stores require private label merchandise be tested extensively by independent labs for consumer safety.

many even require printed product packaging to be tested for lead-based inks or coatings.

i can also tell you that this testing process, at least for the products i work on, is a) quick b) inexpensive and c) easy to pass.

i'm not sure what the problem is. even those who make their products at home can have them sent off to an independent lab for lead testing easily.
 
2008-12-28 07:23:44 PM
AllNeonLike:
i'm not sure what the problem is. even those who make their products at home can have them sent off to an independent lab for lead testing easily.


It's not just lead they're requiring testing for. And how inexpensive is really inexpensive? If I sell one pair of socks online for a child, they would need to be tested. One pair. How much would the testing be? $20? That would be more than the price of the socks themselves already.

And yes, a skein or hank of yarn might only knit into a single pair of socks, maybe two. So each skein or hank would need to be tested, especially if there are a variety of colors used.

That's not inexpensive for a person who would knit for fun and just put something up for sale every now and then.

/a major department store has far more money than the average knitter
//probably more resources as well
 
2008-12-28 07:32:49 PM
So is it time to open a US Government approved testing lab in China that will rubber stamp everything just like every other testing lab there? After all there was a chain of tests for all that cat food that killed so many pets.

/still trying to figure out how green beans from China have a higher protein content than others
 
2008-12-28 07:35:12 PM
Tachikoma:
It's not just lead they're requiring testing for. And how inexpensive is really inexpensive? If I sell one pair of socks online for a child, they would need to be tested. One pair. How much would the testing be? $20? That would be more than the price of the socks themselves already.

And yes, a skein or hank of yarn might only knit into a single pair of socks, maybe two. So each skein or hank would need to be tested, especially if there are a variety of colors used.


in all of my work, i've never been required to test components, only finished products. so you needn't send products from each hank of yarn, but samples of each style/sku.

the cost for lead testing varies on the products, but generally i've never worked on one that ran above $50 for lead testing. extremely involved testing packages can run to $300 or so, however.
 
2008-12-28 07:37:20 PM
Semi-Sane: All Apologies: The criminals who put melamine in the dairy supply will most likely be executed. The example the Chinese government is making out of those criminals will be more than enough to ensure the safety of all toys and food products coming out of China. Any further legislation or regulations is unnecessary, and will hurt more people than it will potentially help.

It's not clear if you're being sarcastic. But after watching some douchebag at a Chinese company say "it's both our fault" because we didn't test their products enough, I think we should happily oblige him and test their products thoroughly.
 
2008-12-28 07:42:46 PM
AllNeonLike:
the cost for lead testing varies on the products, but generally i've never worked on one that ran above $50 for lead testing. extremely involved testing packages can run to $300 or so, however.


Which is what a lot of knitters are outraged about. The testing requires isn't just lead testing. It's testing for several different chemicals, and testing the integrity of the components of the items themselves as well. Such as how strongly an arm is sewn onto a doll, or how well a bow is sewed onto a stuffed animal.

Sure, lead testing might pay for itself after several items are sold, but the rest of the testing as well? No sane knitter is going to go through the headache.

/and if any item is found to have lead, that would lead to a whole outage about a specific yarn itself having lead in it
//there's already been one huge scandal about yarn this year, a toxic yarn scandal for the new year should make things more... interesting
 
2008-12-28 07:50:01 PM
There are several issues here:

Cost of lead testing - new rules limit the number of labs that can do the testing. I've heard estimates of $500-1000 an item, but that might be hysteria. $250-500 an item might be more likely.

Disproportionate effect on small business - crafters and small businesses will be the hardest hit. Mattel can afford to test each of its items because it puts out thousands of each. Crafters and small businesses cannot.

Custom items? - If a seamstress makes a custom first communion dress for a 7 year old girl, she's required to get it lead tested. Really. Seamstresses who have knowledge of the new rules will not sew custom for kids.

Vague wording - There's some question as to whether or not the statues have been phrased to apply to the 12 and under crowd only. The new rules may end up applying to all apparel items, including those for adults.

Retailer effects - Items not lead tested before the date become a "banned and hazardous substance" under the new rules. Expect retailers to take a huge loss, and expect huge discounts on toys before the middle of February.
 
2008-12-28 07:54:17 PM
Who is John Galt?
 
2008-12-28 07:56:06 PM
Hand held lead detector. (new window)

At $30k a piece, they'd pay themselves off quickly enough considering the amount of product coming into the country. Divide the cost by the number of items scanned and it will amount to fractions of a penny added per item. It's as easy as scanning a product to detect lead. I'm sure if there is a large customer, the price would come down, or competitors would offer a comparable product for less.

I'd like to know if there is lead in the products I'm buying, lead causes brain damage.
 
2008-12-28 08:05:39 PM
All they need to do is just require manufactures to label the ingredients. The more parts, the more ingredients.
 
2008-12-28 08:10:33 PM
FSTFKL: Basically, everything has to be tested for lead, no matter how unlikely it is that the item will contain lead, and no matter how unlikely it is that someone will put it in their mouth. Apparently this is going to be a problem not only for the old retired guys who make wooden toys to sell at craft fairs and the "work at home moms" who sell handknit diaper covers online.

Try reading section 101 b(2). The one titled EXCEPTION FOR INACCESSIBLE COMPONENT PARTS. So, basically what you said is wrong.

Second, there are fairly strong small business provisions in the CPSA. I find it highly unlikely that the home knitters would be affected by this. Finally, I'm not sure why there would be a very small number of labs accredited to perform this testing. Any ISO 17025 lab accredited for lead testing, and there are lots, would be fine. If the tests end up being more than $50, I'd be shocked. Lead testing is cheap, easy, and fast. And yes, I've done it.
 
2008-12-28 08:15:14 PM
"There's a German company called Selecta that does some fantastic wooden toys, conforms to all the European standards, exceeds them. But, they're having to pull out of the U.S. market because they realize that they'd have to raise prices so much that it wouldn't be marketable here. So, I've already lost those," said Tiffany Bjorlie with Lundeby's Ecobaby.


Harmonized testing protocols would seem to be an advantage here. Lets face it, there are a number of countries we trust to certify their products, and a number we don't. Test some, sign treaties with the others.
 
2008-12-28 08:17:32 PM
ThematicDevice: Harmonized testing protocols would seem to be an advantage here. Lets face it, there are a number of countries we trust to certify their products, and a number we don't. Test some, sign treaties with the others.

Shockingly, this is likely already the case. The law said accredited, not domestic. Lots of labs in the EU are accredited to the same (or similar) standards and we tend to recognize their findings.
 
2008-12-28 08:28:20 PM
ChubbyTiger: Shockingly, this is likely already the case. The law said accredited, not domestic. Lots of labs in the EU are accredited to the same (or similar) standards and we tend to recognize their findings.

It would be good if we already had the labs in the EU accredited, but sometimes its also an issue of bringing the specifications to the same levels to ease the regulatory burden, or to create standard tests which can be simply included as a report to be checked at customs.

/Haven't looked at EU/US Trade very much
 
2008-12-28 08:33:20 PM
ThematicDevice: It would be good if we already had the labs in the EU accredited, but sometimes its also an issue of bringing the specifications to the same levels to ease the regulatory burden, or to create standard tests which can be simply included as a report to be checked at customs.

ASTM has standard tests for lead, as do their EU counterparts. And the labs don't care about anything beyond the test methods. The level is irrelevant to them - they just report a number. The gov't won't likely be accrediting the labs, private industry will do it. Heck, gov't labs have to be accredited by ISO et al., depending on what they do. And EU lab already approved by one of the EU ISO-like bodies will probably be just fine for everyone. It is in many (if not all) cases with other types of goods.
 
2008-12-28 08:36:44 PM
ChubbyTiger writes: Try reading section 101 b(2). The one titled EXCEPTION FOR INACCESSIBLE COMPONENT PARTS. So, basically what you said is wrong.

No. There is a difference between something that a child isn't going to put in his mouth because it is inaccessible and something that a child isn't going to put in his mouth because it is just unlikely. The valve on a bike tire is not inaccessible, it is just unlikely that a kid is going to suck on it. Same goes for ballpoint pens. And I don't think you intended to suggest that diaper covers are "inaccessible"!

Second, there are fairly strong small business provisions in the CPSA.>
There may be small business provisions in the CPSA (Consumer Product Safety Act), but we are speaking of the CPSIA (Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act). Different law, different requriements.

Finally, I'm not sure why there would be a very small number of labs accredited to perform this testing. The labs must be accredited to perform this test by the CPSA, and so far they haven't accredited many. That may change, but for now, no.

Lead testing is cheap, easy, and fast. And yes, I've done it. Apparently not for the type of testing the CPSA says will be required. You can't just get out an XREF gun.
 
2008-12-28 08:37:59 PM
Let's fix those italics, shall we?

ChubbyTiger writes: Try reading section 101 b(2). The one titled EXCEPTION FOR INACCESSIBLE COMPONENT PARTS. So, basically what you said is wrong.

No. There is a difference between something that a child isn't going to put in his mouth because it is inaccessible and something that a child isn't going to put in his mouth because it is just unlikely. The valve on a bike tire is not inaccessible, it is just unlikely that a kid is going to suck on it. Same goes for ballpoint pens. And I don't think you intended to suggest that diaper covers are "inaccessible"!

Second, there are fairly strong small business provisions in the CPSA.
There may be small business provisions in the CPSA (Consumer Product Safety Act), but we are speaking of the CPSIA (Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act). Different law, different requriements.

Finally, I'm not sure why there would be a very small number of labs accredited to perform this testing. The labs must be accredited to perform this test by the CPSA, and so far they haven't accredited many. That may change, but for now, no.

Lead testing is cheap, easy, and fast. And yes, I've done it. Apparently not for the type of testing the CPSA says will be required. You can't just get out an XREF gun.
 
2008-12-28 08:44:10 PM
ChubbyTiger: ASTM has standard tests for lead, as do their EU counterparts. And the labs don't care about anything beyond the test methods. The level is irrelevant to them - they just report a number. The gov't won't likely be accrediting the labs, private industry will do it. Heck, gov't labs have to be accredited by ISO et al., depending on what they do. And EU lab already approved by one of the EU ISO-like bodies will probably be just fine for everyone. It is in many (if not all) cases with other types of goods.

Like I said, I haven't read up on EU/US trade as much as I should have, its on my to do list. I do know that this is an issue for US/Canada trade.
 
2008-12-28 08:46:46 PM
FSTFKL: Finally, I'm not sure why there would be a very small number of labs accredited to perform this testing. The labs must be accredited to perform this test by the CPSA, and so far they haven't accredited many. That may change, but for now, no.

Could you point out where this is said? There are plenty of accrediting agencies and, as far as I know, the CPSA isn't one of the them. If what you say is true, then even US Customs couldn't test imported toys for CPSC regulations, because they're only ISO accredited. I use the work 'only' there sarcastically.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report