![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In which our heroine writes letters
Jan. 5th, 2009 03:58 pmAnd oh, how I hate writing this sort of thing. You have no idea. Please feel free to repost, link, or quote bits to further the cause, as necessary.
[Salutation to be changed as necessary]:
I am seriously concerned about the impact of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, coming into effect on February 10th. While it is very important that we not allow our children to be poisoned by unsafe imported toys, the act is dangerously wide in scope, and seriously threatens several levels of our economy.
Second hand t-shirts and handmade sweaters are not the problem that the CPSIA is trying to solve. But they are about to become a far more serious problem, when the huge amount of money require to raise a child becomes much greater because every toy and every high chair or school supply and every stitch of clothing that child requires must be bought new, from large manufacturers who are the only ones to be able afford the testing requirements.
Instead of making the world safer for our children, we are ensuring that they will have nothing but products mass-manufactured in those very third world countries where the problems originated. Instead of punishing China and the large manufacturers for their poor safety record, we are making it economically impossible for American children to have goods from anywhere else. Because of poor manufacture problems with toys and children’s jewelry, hundreds of thousands of items of clothing will be going to landfills instead of being available for resale to those who need them.
As any parent knows, children grow quickly, often needing entirely new wardrobes multiple times a year. With the growing rates of unemployment and foreclosure, falling stock prices, and all the other hardships that go along with a recession, do we really need to force parents to buy all new items for their children, while things that proved safe enough for their classmates and neighbors are thrown away? Do we really need to add those people who make toys and clothes for children, or who run children’s thrift stores, or import environmentally responsible small batch goods to the list of the unemployed?
Many people have proposed component-based testing, which would merely require that all the materials that make a product be tested for unsafe elements, rather than re-testing the finished product as well to prove that no unsafe elements have somehow crept in, despite its being made from safe materials. The Handmade Toy Alliance (http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/) urges exceptions to be made for smaller batch items, and people who make one-of-a-kind children’s items within the US, Canada, and Europe, places whose products have a solid record of safety. Either of these is a reasonable solution to the problem of handmade items, and I strongly support both.
However, only an exemption for items made before the February 10th deadline can help with the more serious aspect of the economic impact this poorly planned law is about to have. In one day, the cost of raising a child will leap dramatically for the lower income families who depend on second hand goods to clothe and provide for their children. While it is important to keep our children safe, attempting to do so in this indiscriminate manner seriously harms the children whose parents cannot afford to buy them more than the bare essentials at retail prices, and the families who cannot afford to spend so much more to provide for their children.
Sincerely me, as an American who was once a child, and hopes one day to be a parent.
[Salutation to be changed as necessary]:
I am seriously concerned about the impact of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, coming into effect on February 10th. While it is very important that we not allow our children to be poisoned by unsafe imported toys, the act is dangerously wide in scope, and seriously threatens several levels of our economy.
Second hand t-shirts and handmade sweaters are not the problem that the CPSIA is trying to solve. But they are about to become a far more serious problem, when the huge amount of money require to raise a child becomes much greater because every toy and every high chair or school supply and every stitch of clothing that child requires must be bought new, from large manufacturers who are the only ones to be able afford the testing requirements.
Instead of making the world safer for our children, we are ensuring that they will have nothing but products mass-manufactured in those very third world countries where the problems originated. Instead of punishing China and the large manufacturers for their poor safety record, we are making it economically impossible for American children to have goods from anywhere else. Because of poor manufacture problems with toys and children’s jewelry, hundreds of thousands of items of clothing will be going to landfills instead of being available for resale to those who need them.
As any parent knows, children grow quickly, often needing entirely new wardrobes multiple times a year. With the growing rates of unemployment and foreclosure, falling stock prices, and all the other hardships that go along with a recession, do we really need to force parents to buy all new items for their children, while things that proved safe enough for their classmates and neighbors are thrown away? Do we really need to add those people who make toys and clothes for children, or who run children’s thrift stores, or import environmentally responsible small batch goods to the list of the unemployed?
Many people have proposed component-based testing, which would merely require that all the materials that make a product be tested for unsafe elements, rather than re-testing the finished product as well to prove that no unsafe elements have somehow crept in, despite its being made from safe materials. The Handmade Toy Alliance (http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/) urges exceptions to be made for smaller batch items, and people who make one-of-a-kind children’s items within the US, Canada, and Europe, places whose products have a solid record of safety. Either of these is a reasonable solution to the problem of handmade items, and I strongly support both.
However, only an exemption for items made before the February 10th deadline can help with the more serious aspect of the economic impact this poorly planned law is about to have. In one day, the cost of raising a child will leap dramatically for the lower income families who depend on second hand goods to clothe and provide for their children. While it is important to keep our children safe, attempting to do so in this indiscriminate manner seriously harms the children whose parents cannot afford to buy them more than the bare essentials at retail prices, and the families who cannot afford to spend so much more to provide for their children.
Sincerely me, as an American who was once a child, and hopes one day to be a parent.