Posted on 01/01/2009 2:39:21 PM PST by buccaneer81
New law seems to ban resale of toys Items sold for kids must be certified lead-free on Feb. 10 Thursday, January 1, 2009 3:29 AM By Bill Bush THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
The toys Allison George likes to buy at Trader Tots may not be available under a law that goes into effect Feb. 10. Trader Tots has been buying and selling used toys in Grandview Heights for almost two decades, but it, like resale shops nationwide, fears that a new law will force costly lead tests and hurt business.
Congress enacted the law last year in response to recalls of imported toys laced with lead.
The law requires all items marketed to children 12 or under to be certified lead-free.
Resale stores believe this means that they would have to test older toys for lead.
Trader Tots co-owner Anne Bush-Cassady said the store will stop selling toys before the Feb. 10 deadline. Toys, she said, make up about 25 percent of the store's sales.
"We can't afford to test everything that (comes) in the door," she said. "So all of this is going to get thrown out. What you already have in your house, in a year, year and half, there will be no value, no donatable value and no retail value.
"They will become trash."
It's not just toys. The National Association of Retail and Thrift Shops says the law could apply to clothes, books, electronic devices, furniture -- anything marketed to children.
"The public is going to be so confused," said Adele Meyer, executive director of the association, which represents about 1,000 resale stores in the United States and Canada.
"How are you going to explain to them that the dress that they bought for Christmas, they can't resell it, they can't donate it."
Selling uncertified items could be punishable by imprisonment and a fine of as much as $100,000 per violation, Meyer said.
She said she doesn't believe Congress had resale stores in mind when it passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 in response to a rash of reports about tainted toys, most of which are made overseas.
"We're not against product safety," Meyer said. "We do not want to sell or do anything to harm children. But we're talking about products that were safe to be sold on Feb. 9. We are not talking about recalled products."
A spokesman for the Consumer Product Safety Commission did not return a call yesterday.
Meyer said she hopes that the commission clarifies the law before the February deadline. If not, there could be legal questions about items sold at garage sales, on eBay and Craigslist.
"This is the most acutely complex act," she said.
Nadine Ballard, chief of the Consumer Protection Section of the Ohio attorney general's office, said that an advisory opinion on the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Web site appears to confirm the thrift stores' understanding of the law.
The advisory opinion states that the lead limit "applies to product in inventory or on store shelves" on Feb. 10, not products manufactured after a certain date.
"It looks like they are making a very broad reading of it," she said. "At the end of that date, it has to be off their shelves."
Despite that, Ballard said the law appears to be aimed chiefly at manufacturers, not individuals or small stores selling used goods.
"Clearly, we can't go to every garage sale in America and start fining people," she said.
bbush@dispatch.com
My wife and I are thinking about this—but hell, we make and sell baby tye dyes... I guess you can by them but not use them.. :)
by= buy
hopefully it will be fixed......sorry. Why didn’t we hear about this earlier?
Not your fault if some 'irresponsible' parent puts one on their actual child.
Can one still REGIFT?
True enough.
These lawyers in Congress know exactly what they are doing when it comes to writing laws.
Unintended consequences are so last Century - this crap’s professionally crafted to achieve what it achieves.
Heads On Pikes!
-PJ
I want you to know what is happening in the marketplace in direct response to the Falvey Opinion. It is my understanding that Wal-Mart has informed its suppliers of children's products that it intends to return all merchandise, regardless of age, that cannot be proven to comply with the new standards. Supposedly, it intends to complete this transfer by February 10. At least two other major retailers are rumored to have taken a similar position. This tug-of-war over existing inventory is actually a game of "hot potato": whoever ends up with the inventory on February 10 has a massive, perhaps fatal financial problem. Thus, no one is talking about how to sell off existing inventory (the old "yard sale" idea) - everyone is focusing on how to stick the inventory (the problem) with someone else. We are deathly afraid that Wal-Mart's plan will trigger a massive inventory "run on the bank" where all of our dealers will demand to return their unsold inventory, a scenario implying a stand-off between thousands of companies over a financial issue triggered by the Falvey Opinion. As previously noted, it is certainly true that we cannot afford to absorb the hit on our existing inventory. The notion that we could somehow survive the burden of absorbing the entire U.S. supply chain's inventory of our products is nonsensical. If this happens, you should expect widespread corporate bankruptcies. No sane person could argue that Congress "intended" this result. Clearly, Congress in its rush to punish the entire children's products industries (shoes, electronics, clothing, toys, sports equipment, novelties, books, lamps, etc.) for perceived "bad acts" drafted a law without regard to consequences. It's time to speak the truth - this was not intended by Congress because it couldn't have been intended by Congress. If that's so, the Falvey Opinion must be reversed. Thank you for considering my views on this urgent matter. Sincerely, Richard Woldenberg Chairman
http://fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3379
The manufacture of the shirts, intended for children under 12, is required to supply you with a certification statement with each shipment. As a retailer myself this certification statement will be stored/filed on-site. How long I don't know yet?
The dyes on the other hand will be much more difficult. You will either need to send each dye for testing or the manufacture will. In reading the law much of the responsibility falls to "manufactures." Your problem comes from the fact that a dye manufacture could possibly say ...you're problem. Instead of the reasonable assessment that dyes made for crafters need testing. Yet, they will need to supply that certification to major clothing manufactures anyway...so the dye manufacture has to test and certify it anyway.
I do see much of this along the lines of getting a MSDS, Material Safety Date Sheet, like industry was forced to years ago.
Except the thing is—lead have been prohibited in US Dyes and inks for some nigh 30 years now...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.