Homesteading Forum banner
1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here's the original LA Times article:

New safety rules for children's clothes have stores in a fit

By Alana Semuels
January 2, 2009
Barring a reprieve, regulations set to take effect next month could
force thousands of clothing retailers and thrift stores to throw away
trunkloads of children's clothing.

The law, aimed at keeping lead-filled merchandise away from children,
mandates that all products sold for those age 12 and younger --
including clothing -- be tested for lead and phthalates, which are
chemicals used to make plastics more pliable. Those that haven't been
tested will be considered hazardous, regardless of whether they actually
contain lead.

"They'll all have to go to the landfill," said Adele Meyer, executive
director of the National Assn. of Resale and Thrift Shops.

The new regulations take effect Feb. 10 under the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act, which was passed by Congress last year in
response to widespread recalls of products that posed a threat to
children, including toys made with lead or lead-based paint.

Supporters say the measure is sorely needed. One health advocacy group
said it found high levels of lead in dozens of products purchased around
the country, including children's jewelry, backpacks and ponchos.

Lead can also be found in buttons or charms on clothing and on appliques
that have been added to fabric, said Charles Margulis, communications
director for the Center for Environmental Health in Oakland. A child in
Minnesota died a few years ago after swallowing a lead charm on his
sneaker, he said.

But others say the measure was written too broadly. Among the most vocal
critics to emerge in recent weeks are U.S.-based makers of handcrafted
toys and handmade clothes, as well as thrift and consignment shops that
sell children's clothing.

"We will have to lock our doors and file for bankruptcy," said Shauna
Sloan, founder of Salt Lake City-based franchise Kid to Kid, which sells
used children's clothing in 75 stores across the country and had planned
to open a store in Santa Clara, Calif., this year.

There is the possibility of a partial reprieve. The Consumer Product
Safety Commission, which is responsible for enforcing the law, on Monday
will consider exempting clothing and toys made of natural materials such
as wool or wood. The commission does not have the authority to change
the law but can decide how to interpret it.

But exempting natural materials does not go far enough, said Stephen
Lamar, executive vice president of the American Apparel and Footwear
Assn. Clothes made of cotton but with dyes or non-cotton yarn, for
example, might still have to be tested, as would clothes that are
cotton-polyester blends, he said.

"The law introduces an extraordinarily large number of testing
requirements for products for which everyone knows there's no lead," he
said.

Clothing and thrift trade groups say the law is flawed because it went
through Congress too quickly. By deeming that any product not tested for
lead content by Feb. 10 be considered hazardous waste, they contend,
stores will have to tell customers that clothing they were allowed to
sell Feb. 9 became banned overnight.

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.

The regulations also apply to new clothing. That won't be a problem for
large manufacturers and retailers, industry experts say, but it will be
a headache for small operators such as Molly Orr, owner of Molly O
Designs in Las Vegas.

Orr has already produced her spring line of children's clothes. She says
she can't afford the $50,000 it would cost to have a private lab test
her clothing line, so she's trying to sell her inventory at a steep
discount before Feb. 10. After that, she is preparing to close her business.

"We have a son with autism, so we are all about cleaning up the toxins
that our children are exposed to," she said. "But I think the law needs
to be looked at more closely to see how it is affecting the economy in
general."

Thrift store owners say the law stings because children's garments often
come in new or nearly new, because children typically outgrow clothing
quickly.

Carol Vaporis, owner of Duck Duck Goose Consignment in New Port Richey,
Fla., said her store stocks barely used brand-name clothing from places
such as Limited Too and Gymboree.

"We really provide a service to the community to help people get clothes
for their children they otherwise couldn't afford," she said.

Families have been bringing more clothes to consignment stores, where
they get a chunk of the proceeds, to earn a little cash this winter, she
said. She plans to contact her congressional representatives and
senators to ask them to amend the law but says there's not enough
awareness about the repercussions of the law to force anything to change.

Many retailers and thrift stores appear to be unaware that the law is
changing. Of half a dozen Southern California children's thrift stores
contacted by The Times, only one had heard of the law. Organizations
such as Goodwill say they're still investigating how the law will affect
them because there is so much confusion about what will be banned.

Cynthia Broockman, who owns two consignment stores and a thrift shop in
Virginia, recently stopped accepting children's products for resale.
That raised the ire of a man who was trying to sell his son's castoffs
there and had not heard of the new rules.

"I think it's not understood by people how sweeping and far-reaching
this is," she said. "The ripples that are going to go forth from this
are just astonishing. "
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,627 Posts
this will help the rag business and kill the garage and tag sales when it comes to cloths.
some 12 yr old boys cloths fit 18 yr old girls.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,730 Posts
Interesting to me that this is being supported by the American Apparel and Footwear Association. I expect they stand to gain significantly if people can't buy used clothing. Okay, so that means I need to hit the thrift shops hard this month for clothing to get my dd through the next few years.

Or as stranger mentioned, find someplace planning to sell the "rags". I trust myself to not buy clothing coated in toxic plastics and I trust my 10YEAR OLD dd to have enough sense to not chew on her clothing or eat the buttons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
This bugs me on so many levels. My kids are grown now but I remember how difficult it could be to keep them in clothes when they were growing like proverbial weeds. I also remember donating kids' clothes to churches and thrift stores that still had the tags on them. What a waste. I wonder if this also means that people won't be able to knit hats, gloves and scarves for charity if the yarn hasn't been tested?

The gov't has already told me that the farmer can't sell me raw milk, that restaurants can't serve me trans fats, that the neighbor can't sell homemade canned jams and pickles (without an 'approved' kitchen), that I can't put up a fence without their permit. No wonder gun people are nervous.

Yet alchohol and cigarettes - two items which have been proven without bias to kill thousands every year - are allowed to be sold with minimum restrictions. Don't get me wrong. I don't want those things banned, either. But I guess that Farmer Brown, the local diner and Aunt Betsy along with local churches and thrift stores just don't make hefty enough campaign contributions.

This latest ban won't hurt me personally but I fear it's just the tip of the iceburg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
So, what's to prevent a thrift store owner from putting up a sign saying "Doll Clothing, for display only-not to be worn by humans" and then whoever purchases it can take it home and let their kids wear the clothes if they so choose?

That's what I would do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Or maybe, in the case of non-profits, accepting 'donations' rather than sales. From what I understand, the proposed law will prohibit SALES but says nothing about donations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
This is just wrong! It is a crying shame when people dirt poor would be glad for any piece of clothing on their back. I think it is to keep this country going, so we now have to buy brand new clothing. They are realizing alot shop at thirft stores and they are losing out! What next?

I will be hitting them as well!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Does this mean I have to throw out all my lead underwear? What's going to stop Superman from peeking at my privates? :nana:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
i think the whole lead thing is a bunch of bs as a younger boy/man
i had a lot of exposure through fishing including using my teeth as plyers
on lead sinkers air rifle pellets and later as a technician i did a lot of soldering
with lead before they banned it i used to melt and make my own sinkers
and sling shot ammo.even used old red lead paint once or twice

i can see that swallowing pieces of lead will kill you or give you brain damage
and i try to avoid all exposure to fumes but is the stuff realy that dangerous
that it warrants such legislation?

i mean how many people does it kill or maim in a year?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
I think they should outlaw cars... to protect us. I mean, accidents, pollution, toxins in production. EVIL cars I tell you... evil.
And don't forget hammers......they could be used as a deadly weapon and I banged my thumb on one the other day, it really hurt! Poor me. I should sue Craftsman!! Is there a litigation attorney in the house?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
I have just been on the phone for the last half hr calling the idiots who voted for this stupidity, 1 out of the 10 I called knew what was going on. We all need to call them and tell them what they voted on.

The shock in there voice when I read to them the effect on what this bill would do was so sad.
 

·
WV , hilltop dweller
Joined
·
3,613 Posts
Damoc, as I understand it they are trying to keep the lead away from developing nervous systems in the very young where med to high level exposure has been proved to cause permanant damage...and who says you suffered no damage...after all you are a tin foil hat wearing survivalist wacko(just like me!!! LOL!!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,309 Posts
I think they should outlaw cars... to protect us. I mean, accidents, pollution, toxins in production. EVIL cars I tell you... evil.

Well, I heard from someone that the new incoming president would like to make it illegal to license any vehicle older than 10 years. I guess he thinks anything that old doesn't get good enough gas mileage & this would also keep the big 3 in business longer as we would be forced to upgrade our vehicles. I cetainly hope this is not true as hubby's truck is 21 years old & my van is 11. We can't afford to upgrade to a newer ones right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
And don't forget hammers......they could be used as a deadly weapon and I banged my thumb on one the other day, it really hurt! Poor me. I should sue Craftsman!! Is there a litigation attorney in the house?
And car doors. Heck, doors in general. They can really hurt. Trees, too. I had a small tree fall on my head once. Boy, did that hurt! :stars:
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top