In other words, if I use all safe components in constructing my product, why should I have to test my product at all? That is the part that is absolutely ridiculous.

A blanket exemption for small businesses is as potentially dangerous for consumers as the blanket regulations of the CPSIA has proven for the families supported by several small businesses.

Laws should be written and carried out thoughtfully, and with ongoing consideration of implications and circumstance. It’s a tough, but necessary, balancing act.

What I do wish for is clear guidelines and considerations that will make it possible for businesses on every level to comply, as well as better outreach to help educate small businesses and producers on making and selling safer products.

I’ve learned a lot because of all the buzz, and for that I am grateful. Accordingly, I’ve been working very hard to research my materials. I want to know what it is I’m selling, regardless of the CPSIA.

My second biggest frustration to date is how difficult it can be to get the pertinent information from the materials manufacturers.

My biggest frustration is that, while February’s GCC requirements are reasonable for many of us (would be far more reasonable in combination with component testing options), the mandatory third party testing that takes effect in August is absolutely cost prohibitive on a very small production scale.

Many people on both sides of the issue haven’t separated those two dates, and their very different requirements, in their minds. “National Bankrupcty Day” was coined in reference to February 10th before it was clarified by the CPSC that third party testing would not be required until August.

August is when the real “fun” begins.

If the GCC was paired with a free flow if information from manufacturers regarding issues such as the use of phthalates in our materials, kids would be safer and small businesses would be given the means to comply and survive.

The result of this sad truth is that the toys people love will become extinct, and you will be left with only the cheap, plastic junk that has no originality or uniqueness to it whatsoever. Possibly people who love their work will continue to craft, but they will be selling their items on the black market right next to the crack dealers.

People who make crafts that could be created by a regular citizen should be exempt from this act – people are still allowed to make things for their own children and children of friends, so what is the difference between a crafter selling you a beautiful handmade item and that same person giving the item to a friend as a gift? Uh oh, maybe I shouldn’t have said that – it might give someone the idea to make it illegal for people to give handmade gifts to each other.

Small crafters should be allowed to comply with the law by warning consumers with labels that say “Although not likely to contain any lead or phthalates, this product has not been tested, so please make a wise decision about whether or not this is appropriate for the recipient.”

I AM CAPABLE OF MAKING A GOOD CHOICE. SO ARE YOU. DON’T LET THE GOVERNMENT TAKE THAT AWAY FROM US.

As for #3, yes, it really will be that expensive. The regulations mandate product testing, not component testing, and testing averages around $70 per component. Even if you use the same components in different products and each component passes, you need to have a sample of each finished product tested.

That doesn’t sound bad until you start doing the math. I make cloth diapers that sell for $20-$25. Each has an outer layer, inner layer, snaps and absorbent soaker. It will cost $280 to have one diaper tested. If I make a diaper with a red outer, blue inner, white snaps and cotton soaker, that’s $280 to test. If I make another diaper with exact same fabrics as before except it has a green outer, it needs to be tested for $280 also, even though 3/4 of the components have already passed. Same thing if I make a diaper with an orange outer and everything else the same.

I’m a mother of 6, grandmother, and have been a licensed child care provider for over 13 years. I certainly don’t want ANY child to be exposed to lead. At the same time these CSPIA regulations are SO stringent and overbearing that they will cause many small businesses and cottage industries to close their doors.

I wondered about your thoughts on a couple of things:

1) When toys are tested for lead by non government, community service type organizations, do they test toys randomly for lead, or do they pick ones that are more likely to contain it? For example, just toys that are painted, or favoring testing metallic jewellery that falls into an automatic “suspicious” category.

I am actually hoping this is the case as I’m quite distressed by the references to 16-20% of all toys containing lead. Is it truly 20% of ALL toys (testing was random)?

2) When kids get beyond basic teething toys, how does one balance safety with finding enough stimulating toys for the child? I really struggle with feeling like my daughter is/is going to miss out because I am so distrustful of virtually ALL toy companies at this point.

3) Do you have opinions on famous-for-safety companies like Haba for wooden toys, etc.

Thanks so much and keep up the good work!

The writer concludes that she isn’t “willing to chance giving my child an untested toy” and that she isn’t willing to make exemptions “no matter the size or origin”, and she seems to have a lot of support here, so it appears the CPSIA’s application to craft fairs is what the public wants anyway.