Bangs head on wall.

Even the Snopes article shows the disconnect, with statements from the CPSC saying that resellers won't be required to test -- but they could still face penalties if they sell things that fail the standards. So either way, they're screwed.

The law states that the certification is only for manufacturers that wish to import or enter the product into commerce. Unless you sewed the clothes yourself, then you won't have a problem.

I know all of the little mom and pop toy makers in the US are worried about this, but I hear very little about what this is meaning for high-quality manufacturers from other countries.

Already, one company, Selecta Spielzeug, has announced that they are pulling out of the US market, even though their products-which are made in Germany and meet the much tougher European EN71 and ASTM standards-are valued and respected by parents in this country as quality alternatives to Chinese-made toys.

One would think that wording could be inserted into the law stating that the products sold in the US would automatically meet the new standards if they met the European standards.

This whole mess sounds like the CPSC is just avoiding the real issue of products produced in China. So in some effort to not offend China or the big importers (like Mattel) they are making broad vague rules. Those broad vague rules are now creating a huge mess.
Any raw materials or finished products currently being imported from China need to be tested. That solves issues for small US based manufacturers that do the construction here. It solves the resale question. I also think the idea that if something has passed EU standards it should be blanket accepted here. Punishing small US manufacturers and European importers over the bad behavior in China, heckuva job.

And becoming a parent in the downward economy just might get a bit tougher.

This bill could also be detrimental to craftspeople who hand-produce children's products. No more crocheted baby blankets from nice old ladies at craft fairs! It's a huge problem, write your congressman!

I was concerned when I heard about this because I sell stuff on eBay. One of the best things I sell are vintage/collectible toys.

For a minute, I thought that I would be able to sell that stuff anymore. But if they would have shut down the sale of vintage toys, that would end a multi-million dollar cash cow for eBay and other sellers.

Thank God, it appears I won't be affected.

I really hope they get this straightened out. The used clothing trade is especially important now that the economy is tanking.

I grew up in garage sale finds, and I am increasingly looking to Goodwill and places like Once Upon A Child for my own kid. I've even donated and traded clothes that are practically (or entirely) new because babies grow SO fast.

How will this affect charity driven stores like Salvation Army and Goodwill?

@ophmarketing: You'd think. But government being what it is...

@Ixnayer: It's already been established that thrift stores are exempt.

@ophmarketing: You expect the government to do anything sensible?

The Europeans have much better auto safety and environmental regulations, yet all European made vehicles have to be "federalized" to meet the US standards.

There are a bunch of idiots in the center of the District of Columbia!

@jurijuri: The idea of going after garage sales and every Goodwill, Savers or Salvation Army store in the country is totally impossible to ever enforce. If they tried this and even did a few to make examples out of people I think the public outrage would be huge.

It would basically make us all slaves to buying everything from big companies and forced to toss out perfectly usable items. Now add to that so many people either being cost aware or cash strapped and it would become an outrage fast.

So is Nancy Nord being replaced anytime soon?

Look for thrift stores to eliminate their children's clothing section, while simultaneously adding a new "Midget Boutique".

This is going to tank etsy.com. This is going to put moms who buy cloth diapers as a cheaper (and sometimes a non-allergenic solution) alternative to bulk disposables from other moms who make them themselves in a HUGE bind. Women who make and sell kids clothing, blankets, stuffed animals, etc., -- all are screwed. Way to go Government. As if raising children isn't fucking expensive enough.

@I am Mrs. Nerdtastic.: Pretty much, yes. That the government seems unable or unwilling to distinguish between large corporations using raw, untested materials and people making products using materials already tested and cleared for sale in the US leaves me gobsmacked.

You could always borrow a trick from various churches and non-profits and give them away, after payment of a "suggested donation."

A good friend of mine makes short run and one-of-a-kind baby clothes and accessories and she is extrememely worred about this.

@bohemian:

I have to agree with this, and I don't think it will stop people from selling or trading kids' clothes. It is just too expensive to keep buying stuff all the time, even when the economy is good. No one is going to do this.

"Psst! Barbie down the street is selling Beanie's old Garanimals cheap! Pass it on!"

There has been a similar exception made for 'natural materials' ie: cotton, wool, wood, silk, gems, etc. BUT they all have to be un-treated. So, no synthetic dyes, paint, printing, etc. For Waldorf style handmade goods, they are fine now: Plain handmade goods, such as cloth diapers and knitted blankets (with plant dyed wool/cotton), plain wood toys (not sure if bees wax or food grade oil count or not) will be exempt. But, anything made with a cotton that has printing on it, a wood toy with paint that already meets lead free standards, will still have to be tested. This is still bad for a large amount of handmade products. The bottom line is something needs to be done. No more handmade kids products at the Pike Place Market in Seattle anymore - it'll be illegal!! I spoke to our House Representative's assistant here in Washington State, and he pretty much said, "The toy police are not going to be out looking for violations from small, handmade toy artisans. They are going to be watching the large companies." So, because they are not watching, it will be OK? That is not the way to fix the problem, by ignoring it. I think the government still doesn't understand how this will effect handmade toys - unless they don't care. There isn't a lobbyist for the handmade toy industry. But, Mattel and Hasbro has one. Follow the money.

@Pamela McCarty:

They won't be looking but what happens when you get some overeager politician looking for an easy photo op "protecting the community's children". He/She/It picks a nice big flea or farmer's market and goes in with police inexplicably dressed in riot gear to arrest all of the lead peddling baby killers there then burns the merchandise in front of the cameras.

Maybe an exaggeration, maybe just Illinois politics.

@ophmarketing: It's SO frustrating. I'm becoming a parent in May or June, and suddenly my choices for high-quality, safe children's products have been severely limited because this new law punishes US, Canadian, and EU manufacturers and small craft studios who were NEVER THE PROBLEM. And leaves me with just the cheap plastic crap from MegaCo producing it in China. Thanks, government! You've removed all the safe choices in the name of safety! You're awesome!

@jurijuri: This wouldn't be possible to enforce, if something happens and it becomes illegal to sell used kids clothes then people would just start getting together and do grass roots swapping like they did in the 1980's. Hand me downs will always exist no matter what, you cannot stop people from swapping with each other. Neighbors will start getting together and matching up based on kids ages and sizes and parents will still hand down clothes from their older kids to their younger kids. Churches would still be able to hold sales and swaps because there is no way some organization would be able to police all the church swaps and sales that happen in America, and the cost to patrol these would be astronomical.

@bohemian:

Well of course it's avoiding the real issue. Do any of you have any idea what would happen if China stops buying our T-bills? No one in D.C. is going to do anything to piss them off. (even something that they richly deserve)

@se7a7n7: Thrift stores are NOT exempt.

@speedwell, avatar of snark: Under the CPSIA, that won't work. This law applies to "distribution." Not just selling.

Even giving away toys/clothes/books that haven't been tested violates this law, and makes the distributor into a felon! These are felony offenses. In all likelihood, prosecution will be very low, but this is going to be devastating to those that get selectively prosecuted.

@Pamela McCarty: Plant dyed wool/fiber won't be okay, because even plant dye is a treatment.

All the little babies must be dressed in drab, natural, untreated colors.

@se7a7n7: Even if you do have a problem with the new requirements, I'd think you'd be in the clear selling vintage/collectible toys if you put a warning in every auction that your items are not for use by children.

There are plenty of manufacturers who sell dishes marked "not food safe" or "for decorative use only." You're selling that old Flexible Flyer for decorative use only, right?

This is very worrisome to me, as I knit baby goods for my income. Since the wool yarn I buy has been dyed, even though the dye producers certify it as lead free, this law threatens my livelihood.

I also sew cloth diapers for other moms who want to save money and avoid the chemicals in disposable diapers for their children. I guess that's out, too.

It also worries me that the CPSC will not accept the simple lead tests because they're inaccurate in its judgment. The unit it recommends to test for lead is prohibitively expensive to almost all small children's item makers. Way to run us all out of business, Congress. Thanks!

@se7a7n7: Meh, just do what you want. The Toy Police aren't going to come bust down your door because you sold a used My Little Pony on ebay. The CPSC doesn't have time to worry about mega-manufacturers. They surely aren't going to spend time messing with individuals.

@Charlie Lewis: This is exactly what the law should do. If somebody buys her clothes shouldn't there be some form of protection to know what she is selling is not lead tainted?

I love how so many people are calling for the government to treat different groups differently based on their size.

Oh, it's perfectly okay to expect MegaCo to have to pay out thousands (millions?) in testing, but SecondhandshopInc is okay to potentially poison children?

@thrid001: If everything she used to make those clothes was already in compliance with the laws necessary to sell it in the US though, why should she need to test again? You don't magically add new products when you stitch fabric.

So let me get this straight: New federal laws are going into effect for testing clothing for lead and everyone is going to get hit differently but nobody knows who or how bad? Couldn't they, you know, wash the used clothing a couple times to get out whatever seems to have killed it's previous owner (if we go by what we're testing for)?

Why are we worrying about this now? How many people have contracted lead poisoning from their clothing for oh, say, the past 300 years? Is there a terrible pandemic going around with children rolling in piles of lead? Are manufacturers of children's clothing really evil geniuses hell bent on ruling the world through the illegal clothing trade?

Why on earth do kid's clothes need to be tested for lead in the first place, new or used? We're not talking about x-ray aprons. Why do toys made of maple (the small domestic toymakers who started up in reaction to the Chinese lead paint scare are going to be hammered) need testing for lead? Books do not contain lead paint, but they're not exempted from this law.

Wouldn't it have been easier, less disruptive, and more effective to just ban toys from China? This law needs to be repealed, and a new solution thought out. It's a bit disturbing to find Consumerist parroting the CSPI line here, considering the increased costs and standardization this law is going to impose in the consumer marketplace. The law is great for Mattel, which can absorb the cost and pass it on to consumers while its competitors vanish. Awful for everyone else.

@English, MF, do you speak it?: LOL. Perfect!