Posted on 09/01/2009 9:48:57 PM PDT by Lorianne
Remember the sloppily written ... toy testing law that went into effect last year? The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) requires third-party testing of nearly every object intended for a child's use, and was passed in response to several toy recalls in 2007 for lead and other chemicals. Six of those recalls were on toys made by Mattel, or its subsidiary Fisher Price.
Small toymakers were blindsided by the expensive requirement, which made no exception for small domestic companies working with materials that posed no threat. Makers of books, jewelry, and clothes for kids were also caught in the net. Enforcement of the law was delayed by a year—that grace period ended last week—and many particular exceptions have been carved out, but despite an outcry, there has been no wholesale re-evaluation of the law. Once might think that large toy manufacturers would have made common cause with the little guys begging for mercy. After all, Mattel also stood to gain if the law was repealed, right?
As luck would have it, Mattel already operates several of its own toy testing labs, including those in Mexico, China, Malaysia, Indonesia and California.
So while most small toymakers had no idea this law was coming down the pike until it was too late, Mattel spent $1 million lobbying for a little provision to be included in the CPSIA permitting companies to test their own toys in "firewalled" labs that have won Consumer Product Safety Commission approval.
The million bucks was well spent, as Mattel gained approval late last week to test its own toys in the sites listed above—just as the window for delayed enforcement closed.
Instead of winding up hurting, Mattel now has a cost advantage on mandatory testing, and a handy new government-sponsored barrier to entry for its competitors.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
More of government picking winners and losers through draconian regulation.
As usual, nothing was solved.
Thank you President Bush.
This means they have the right to a redress of their grievances before the government, i.e. they can lobby.
It is their first amendment right, and a duty to their shareholders, to spend their profits in the way most amenable to future profits: buying congressmen.
In a totally free market everything is for sale ... until a big enough fish purchases enough government to say differently.
OK, so why can’t Mattel get slammed for antitrust here?
So in conclusion, don’t lick Barbie.
Duh. This is the way that the big businesses in bed with government shut down their smaller competition.
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.