I'm astonished by this. I honestly thought if anyone would be up on this it would be Clark Howard. Then to read some of the comments from others it just sickens me.
I own a small business handcrafting personalized baby and child bracelets as well as rhinestone embellished shirts. Because of this law and the way it was poorly written it will not allow me to continue creating these items. The only material in some of my designs that contain lead is Swarovski Crystals, which are unaccessible. Well, unless you take a large amount of crystals and pound them with a hammer and then ingest them. That wouldn't be too smart. You could say, take the Swarovski crystals out and then you would not be selling any items that contain lead. Oh, wait, I can't! Why? Because I still have to have it tested by a Third Party Testing Facility and labeled.
Someone made a comment to pass on the cost to the consumer. The cost for the required testing alone would financially kill me. Plus no one is going to want to pay $480 for a rhinestone onsie. The testing cost approx. is $450!!
The way this law was written it DID include the small businesses such as craftspeople and your cottage toy makers.
The law needs to be amended before 2/10. Some article I read said they are not even going to address the craftspeople until after 2/10. What sense does that make?
Do you know what is even worse about this whole thing? Even the CPSC has stated they haven't identified acceptable testing procedures for some product classes and don't quite understand all there is to this law. That's right! They don't even know how to tell us how to test our products or what to do about anything. But they are full steam ahead for implementation on 2/10.
FYI, I am a mother and I am all for protecting my kids. Just like I wouldn't dare let them play with lighters or knives or anything that would endanger them. This was suppose to be about the "big box" businesses. Not about us small ones.
Be sure to visit these sites: http://www.reformcpsia.org
http://cpsia-central.ning.com/

Clark and Lori unfotunately you are very misinformed. If you think retailers will have no problem passing on costs you have not met the mom who knits baby bonnets at home or the person who owns a small thrift store and diligently checks for all recalled toys. You are assuming we are all Target and Mattel.

The CSPC has made no statements that thrift stores and small handcrafters are exempt.

The reality is, if nothing changes you will no longer see children's products in thrift stores, crafts shows, rummage sales, online markets, small boutiques and renaissance faires.

It is important to note that the problems which led to this law originated in lead charms and plastic toys made by large manufactured who import their goods from or manufacture in China. Lead in charms and phalates which result from plastic manufacturing. Since 80 of the 100 or so testing labs are in China and testing is much cheaper there, none of those toys will ever be tested IN the US. Do you trust testing from a country where melamine in pet food and baby formula originated?

Reebok and a work at home mom or your grandma are not equals.The businesses who are trying to get help are people working at home with a sewing machine crafting hand made clothes and plushies, art dolls, knitted wool hats and slippers, quilts, often made from supplies bought at Jo-ann fabric. Cotton and wool fabrics and books have not been proven to be a risk of lead.

The deadline is fast approaching and many shops and small manufacturers are unclear on how they can test affordably and whether they law applies to their product, while many more are not even aware of the law. So far the CPSC has not clarified anything for the small businesses who would genuinely like to comply. They are actually asking to be allowed to test materials rather than finished products because testing destroys one of a kind items and will cost $100,000s. No one actually wants to hurt children, they just want the CSPC to realize that the law was written with Mattel size manufacturers and their finances in mind, not a mom who sews ballet tutus at and knits baby bonnets at home.

Lori,
I'm actually a small handicrafter.
I buy yarn ONE skein at a time, to make one toy at a time.

The yarn I buy is unlikely to have any significant ( 10ppm OR LESS) lead, and will not likely have any phylates.

I can't afford the testing.
Each of my toys costs around $20 for a hand made One of a Kind plushie.

The very cheapest sort of testing I can get to clear ONE of my toys will run me $15. Add in the shipping of several toys at a time to and from the tester...

Now each toy will have to sell at $50 or more each.

Having already invested years in my art form and market research... having invested significant amounts in high quality supplies... I KNOW that I can't sell one of my wool toys for $50. my market won't bear it.

So I go out of business "big deal", well it IS... I'm no longer buying supplies, so then there is stress on the stores and companies that provide my materials.

Also since my income is reduced, I'll have to apply for Medicaid, Energy Assistance, and foodstamps...
I'll probably leave my home less often, so there's a multi weekly bus fare gone.
Multiply that by the others in the same boat I'm in... and bus fares will go up for everyone.

I'll go under if this law is enforced.
I'm disabled, so my home based business is my only income. I'm not able to go out and do a "normal" job.

And it's not jus the disabled home worker, but the Stay At Home Mom, who if she were working outside the home, would make maybe enough to have a little left over after paying a baby sitter or the daycare people.

The problem isn't that small business owners are assuming this new legislation includes them....rather.....it DOES include them by the generalized sweeping vague content it includes - ALL products for children 12 and under! There is also a statement indicating that ALL PRODUCTS already regulated by the CPSC are also included. The testing is redundant requiring multiple companies to test for compliance before the product actually reaches the end user. The scope of this piece of legislation needs to be narrowed and to be more specific.

Clark, I am a loyal listener and I truly value your advice, but what you have said here and on the air is so potentially harmful. I believe that I even heard you say on the air that thrift and consignment stores are "exempt." This is simply not true. Above you say that thrift stores and others can "breathe a sigh of relief" based on a PRESS RELEASE from the CPSC. I understand that the object of this poorly-written law is NOT the small business and the thrift store, but the law, as written, INCLUDES THEM. If they were trying to target the "Wal-Marts, Targets and Toys R' Uses of the world," then the law should have been written that way. You can't just "wave away" the law with a press release. The law must be AMENDED to exclude these people. The only way to do this is to write our representative and senators, but I fear that once folks hear your "take" on this situation, no one will be reaching for their pen. I urge you to rethink your position on this issue, and to ask your listening/viewing audience to take action by writing their representative or senators.

I agree with Clark that the CPSC isn't looking for me (I own a children's store), but what happens when I get hit with a lawsuit because someone purchases something I've had over a year that I didn't know wasn't compliant. The CPSC needs to skip me and go right to the manufacturers.

low income consumers who shop at thrift stores for AFFORDABLE clothing for children will be greatly impacted. Now there are more and more people who are hurt by the recession, facing foreclosure, and job layoffs with small children who will also have a great need for thrift stores. Safety is important, but food and clothing are also immediate needs for some families. It's tough when one is put into a position of deciding whether to buy food or pay the heat bill -- things are still more dire for those who have children.

However, this regulation does not require testing of adult clothing -- an LA Times article I have read is that testing is required of products/clothing for children 12 years and younger. http://tinyurl.com/9amsob

So if you continue to follow the 'logic' of the law's intent, the products for adults are not subject to testing either? Isn't the possibility of lead poisoning for adults just as dangerous for small children, or the elderly? It is a half-baked "law" if you ask me. If they want to test, they should test everything....

This will hurt the thrift stores, and the charities and the employees (think of Goodwill!) that depend upon them, as well the consumer demographics I named above.

I understand that small business may be inconvenienced with new toy safety laws, but I am sick of safety being the last on the list. If the item is unsafe, then you cannot sell it!! Clear as day! I am sure all businesses will have no problems passing on any added costs to the consumer. That is fine. I have stopped buying all that made in China crap over a year ago! Just look at retail sales. Consumers dont have jobs, or money, and especially not the money for items that break two months after we buy them. Take this time to start selling safe high quality items and get the reputation for the BEST items, not the CHEAPEST!

Thrift stores and consignment sales are NOT exempted from the law. The clarification simply indicated that testing is not required- HOWEVER, the sale of any recalled or prohibited items is still illegal. This is a tremendous burden on such businesses - especially since many benefit charities.

I purchase quite often from many small publishers online. Today I got a notice that one publisher has to liquidate their entire stock of published and CD materials and wait until they can purchase the "tested and approved" CD's to avoid going bankrupt because of the fines. They are not a thrift shop, but all those CD's that babies chew on, the CD's that aren't made with lead in the first place, could be such a danger. Once again, government reaches far beyond what it should, and screws things up even worse. How can consumers see it so clearly, and yet they keep on chuggin', planning the next screw-up?