Let’s Poison the Children! (Not!)
You know, one of the stupidest things I’ve heard said about people opposed to CPSIA is that they apparently want to be able to sell lead-tainted products to children.
That’s patently absurd. Bear in mind that the businesses responsible for the major lead scares of 2007 and 2008 were not small & home businesses in the U.S. but the large corporations who outsourced their manufacturing to China. Some of the small & home businesses (who are the ones protesting CPSIA) in fact started as a result of wanting to give parents and children a safer option to mass-produced toys that came from who knows where.
Many of these entrepreneurs looked for materials that would be safe for children. They looked for all-natural and organic materials. They looked for lead-free paints and dyes. They did those things. Many started by making toys and clothes for their own children, and then started selling. So, of course, many of these people had no intention of selling to anyone else anything that they wouldn’t use for their own kids.
These people aren’t Superman villains bent on poisoning the nation’s children through a nefarious plan of hand-crafting seven toys a week!
Here’s something to understand about lead. Lead is an element, represented by the symbol Pb. It’s not like steel, which is an alloy. To make steel, you have to have iron (Fe) and carbon (C). So, with steel, you could take two items that don’t contain steel, and end up making an item that would be considered steel, or would have steel parts. Never mind how realistic that is; just pay attention to the thought. Okay, so two products that don’t contain steel could be mixed and produce an end result of steel.
Now, you cannot do that with lead. An item without lead combined with another item without lead cannot produce lead. You cannot get lead out of something that doesn’t have lead. You can have a chemical compound that includes lead from which lead may be extracted, but you cannot combine chemicals to create lead, because, again, lead is an element.
So, if a toy or dress maker takes fabric that does not contain lead, dyes it with pigments that do not contain lead, sews it with thread that does not contain lead, using a needle that does not contain lead, then it is physically impossible for the end product to contain lead.
However, CPSIA requires that the resulting product be tested for lead and there are people that cheer for this testing. But, such testing is wasteful because there is no way for lead to magically appear.
Additionally, it makes no sense to test different products all made using the same lead-free components simply because they are different. Lead will not magically appear in one product just because it’s a different size or shape.
So, how about this? (And, this is just a thought and I have not researched the feasibility so, for any Congressmen reading, don’t immediately vote this into law before some discussion and research has been done. That’s how you screwed up with CPSIA. Hopefully you can learn from your mistakes. If not, please stop eating lead paint chips!) But, how about any product containing lead be labeled as such? Regardless of whether it’s marketed to kids or adults, if it contains lead, it must be labeled as such. Most products already have labels or markings, so shouldn’t be a big problem to add “contains lead” if the product contains lead. If it contains compounds containing lead, it needs to be marked “contains lead.” If it is dyed with colorings that contain lead, the product must be marked “contains lead.”
When anything is made of those products, it too must be marked as “contains lead.”
When a small or home business goes to buy supplies, anything containing lead will be marked as such. So, they will know not to purchase those supplies that contain lead if they are creating products made for children. Then, they just need to make note of the products they used. If the CPSC comes knocking at their door saying their product contains lead, the business owner can identify the source of the materials and the CPSC can move up the food chain until they find the company that was selling lead-containing products and not identifying them as such.
Now, assuming a business has gone through the precaution of making sure all the supplies they buy do not contain lead, they can market their product as lead-free. If there are any penalties, such penalties and fines should be against source companies selling lead-containing products without identifying them as “contains lead.”
This also resolves the problem of small and home businesses that may purchase supplies that are not required to be tested under CPSIA. For example, a manufacturer may make fabrics and, if they are not designed for or intended to be used by children, they do not have to test those fabrics and are unlikely to do so because of the added expense. And, the fabric may come from different lots and so on, and that just makes it more difficult and expensive for the small or home business to afford all the testing they are required to do if they are using that fabric to create products intended for use by children.
The additional benefit of this would be making adults better informed about the products they buy. Lead may be most harmful to children, but it can affect adults as well.
Of course, if certain companies want to voluntarily send their products out for third-party testing, then they would be able to sell their products as “certified lead-free.” Of course, you might argue that’s unfair to the companies that cannot afford testing, but I submit it’s better to compete as “lead-free” vs. “certified lead-free” rather than “lead-free” vs. “hazardous waste” as the current CPSIA legislation would do.
This would mean that small and home business owners would still have to do their due diligence (which most have done to begin with) to be sure they are using lead-free supplies to create lead-free children’s products. But, it would be less costly, more efficient, and may actually make products safer by highlighting products and supplies that they may not have knew contained lead.
And the CPSC could do random testing of products at points where lead may be more likely to be slipped in, whether accidentally or intentionally, to make sure that they are playing along. And testing requirements could be required when importing from countries that don’t have good track records and random testing could be done on imports from countries with equal or more stringent safety requirements just as an extra check.
Because, you know, I would bet with near 100% certainty that there are not any small and home businesses stock-piling lead so they can sneak them into children’s products to poison them. If any lead is getting through, it is because it was in supplies they weren’t aware of.
If we really want to protect children, it is best to do it in a way that gets people working together rather than squaring them off against one another. Let’s identify problem areas and correct them sensibly. Instead of putting a huge financial burden on those they are trying to do the right things, or forcing them out of business with threats or risks of huge penalties and fines, let’s simplify things. Let’s educate people on what contains lead, so that such products can be avoided if necessary. Let’s educate people on the true risks; let’s not work people up into a hysteria over lead, especially when it may be present in places unlikely to do harm.
And, if we are to spend more money on preventing childhood lead poisoning, why not spend it in areas where children stand a greater risk of lead poisoning, such as by helping families in older homes and buildings remove old lead paint or help do what can be done to clean up soil around older buildings where lead may be present?
Oh, and ditto for the phthalates. 
The best thing is for Congress to repeal CPSIA and try again. And this time, they should actually listen to people outside their Washington D.C. circle of “experts” and lobbyists, etc. And actually have real public feedback. (You can’t really say you’ve had public feedback if the public didn’t know about it and it’s fairly obvious in this case that the public and those affected were largely unaware of it.)
Anyway, that’s just my latest brainstorming session. Feel free to kick it around or tear it apart or make it better in the comments!
as a maker and seller of cloth diapers, your post really makes sense to my area of interest. thanks. it’s a good idea and i can only hope that The Law is repealled. well said.
Excellent post, Dan.
Sadly, as it makes sense, it will never fly.
The incestuous Washingtonian culture is rarely, if ever, open to reason.
Elmer Hurlstone
These people aren’t Superman villains bent on poisoning the nation’s children through a nefarious plan of hand-crafting seven toys a week!
Of course not. We’re balding men in top hats and monocles, rolling around on the piles of money we’ve made by replacing organic cotton in our products with pure lead!
Because, you know, I would bet with near 100% certainty that there are not any small and home businesses stock-piling lead so they can sneak them into children’s products to poison them.
Dang, someone has guessed my nefarious plan! Now I’ll have to figure out what to do with that big pile of lead in my basement… hmmm… Ah! Breakfast cereal! (did I say that out loud?)
You know I’ve been at the forefront of the fight against CPSIA; it was members of my forum who made this issue known across the web in an organized strategy started last August. I mention this so you know I’m firmly in the camp of opposing this legislation.
That said, the problem with a lot of independent crafters is that they buy inputs they presume are safe at retail and affix or apply them to inherently lead free products. These are often trinkets and notions or iron decals and paints that contain both lead and phthalates. The issue is, they think that because they made these items with all the good intentions in the world and they bought the decorations at retail, that these are safe -but it’s not necessarily true.
Unfortunately, there are existing rules and regulations that precede the CPSIA that independents have likewise ignored such as those addressing drawcords, choking hazards and flammability. Many think those only apply to “big guys” but there’s never been an exemption based on size. Moreover, many (including some of the biggest opponents to CPSIA) produce items that are very dangerous. I won’t link publicly but I will send you a link to examples. Lastly, most (MOST) independents ignore existing labeling laws such as those that fall under the auspices of the FTC.
The overarching concern here is that for the first time, independents are being brought into the fold, I’d argue due to the changes in commerce owing to technology advances. Previously there was a sort of vetting process with retailers acting as enforcers -albeit informally. For example, prior to the onset of direct to consumer selling on the internet, an independent had fewer options to sell their products. Initially they might take an order from a few local stores but growing beyond that, a retailer would balk saying, “where’s your RN, these aren’t legally labeled” etc so the independent would realize they needed to become more professional and would move to comply. Moving further up the chain to larger stores, the “enforcement” increased to include drawcords, flammability etc. However, now that producers can sell to consumers who don’t know these rules and are in no position to enforce them, the regulations we already have are not being uniformly applied. Iow, there are many who think that the CPSIA is actually a blanket strategy to exact a level of professionalism in sewn products that doesn’t exist, to cover the changes in retailing that internet technology has provided opportunities for. The question becomes, how do we encourage independents to become more professional? It’s a question we grapple with a lot on my site and it’s created a great deal of resentment among casual producers. Somehow, we cannot convey to them that professionalism has NOTHING to do with size.
The issue remains, if we cannot convince our peers (even tho they don’t consider themselves that they are our peers, and they ARE) they need to become more professional, the CPSIA is an attempt to convince them they need to be.
The idea of dealing with lead at a component level makes far too much sense to be implemented:/
Maybe Congress knows the secret to alchemy and they just haven’t shared it with us:)
Nice post - my thoughts -yes we need to educate parents. However, people need to quit thinking that the government is their safety net for everything - “Hi, I am from the government and I am here to help”. The government sets guidelines and companie push the envelop for profits and sales, so understanding the safety guidelines and reading labels and asking questions is probably the best direction to take - don’t take anyone’s word for it - Parents know their children, what sensitivities they have - or at least they should. If they don’t, then they need to spend more time with their families.
Just my humble opinion.
Jan
Hi. Stumbling. That’s all.
I love this, finally an idea that may work.
Kathleen, wouldn’t simply adding “may contain lead” to products solve the problem you are referring to. Then the responsibility is on the consumer (parents) to decide if they would like to take the risk.
I agree all vendors need to strive for complete safety but where is the consumer’s responsibility in this?
We allow cigarettes to be sold without certifying every batch of every component of every product of every variation in every cigarette company is SAFE for consumers. They are allowed to simply add a disclaimer to their product. Why can’t it be the same with this?
Karen