Safety Gone Wild

I am approaching the blog today with a slightly different tack than usual. The bill I am highlighting is trying to improve upon a recently imposed law. It is the original law in this case that is awful. The bill is...

S.608 A bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 to exclude secondary sales, repair services, and certain vehicles from the ban on lead in children's products, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Tester, Jon [MT] (introduced 3/17/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Latest Major Action: 3/17/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

The CPSIA prohibits the sale of products that have not been successfully tested for lead or phthalate content. My understanding of this law is that ANY item intended to be used by children 12 and younger, MUST be tested for lead and phthalate content by a certified testing facility. This applies not only to new retail items, but used goods too. This law, if enforced, would put thrift stores out of business. In addition, items that contain lead by design like the batteries on scooters, and mini-bikes are not excluded. It seems that if your kid, old enough to ride a motorized vehicle, is eating the lead from inside what are usually sealed batteries, you might have bigger problems than anything the CPSIA might hope to fix.

One of the biggest problems with the CPSIA is something this bill apparently does not remedy -- microbusiness. A very large amount of business is conducted by very small home businesses. If you make sock puppets completely of cotton socks, you not only have to test your product, you have to test every variation including color. Each of these tests will cost over $1000. This effectively puts small toy makers out of business or places them at risk of being prosecuted for violation of this inane law.

Certainly, there are many other unintended* consequences of this law which addresses a problem the market has shown signs of tackling on its own. Ever since the series of safety issues raised by certain Chinese imports became national news, toy manufacturers have begun taking steps to advertise how their products are safe.

*I say unintended here although I am not so sure the consequences are unintended. I am guessing if one followed the law back to its inception, one would find that large toy manufacturers who can spread test costs across tens and hundreds of thousands of items, had a hand in crafting and promoting this bill.