Baubles, bangles, bright shiny beads
Not allowed near your darling little snowflake, if we have our way:
Next up for the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s consideration, a petition from America’s makers and sellers of bangles, baubles, beads and crystals. Trade associations representing broad swaths of business petitioned the CPSC in February [pdf], asking that these decorative products be excluded from the lead content limits set by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. (The groups were the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association, Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of America, Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, National Retail Federation, and United Dance Merchants of America.)
Not that it matters to the Feds [pdf], since they have the mighty CPSIA on their side, and the CPSIA will brook no tolerance levels whatsoever:
[G]iven the assessment provided by the requestors, the staff likely would have concluded that the estimated exposure to lead from children’s use of crystals would have little impact on the blood lead level. Accordingly, based on the staff’s assessment, the staff would have recommended that the Commission not consider the product to be a hazardous substance to be regulated under the FHSA.
However, the CPSIA establishes the standard by which the staff evaluates the materials submitted with a request for exclusions. The law states that an exclusion may be granted if lead in such product or material will neither: (a) result in the absorption of any lead into the human body, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of such product by a child, including swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other children’s activities, and the aging of the product; nor (b) have any other adverse impact on public health or safety.
Because the requestors’ report indicated that children’s use of crystal beads could result in absorption of lead, however small the absorbed amount, the staff’s initial recommendation to the Commission is to not grant the request on the grounds that the statutory standard has not been met.
Summing up:
Children’s health is not endangered by these products, at all. Yet the law requires NO possible absorption of lead. Therefore, these products must be banned.
And when your little 10-year-old ballerina cries because her new tutu isn’t as pretty and sparkly as the old one, well, too bad. The law is clear.
Call me when they ban death — or when they make it mandatory. Whichever comes first.
(Found in the sidebar at Deep Glamour.)
fillyjonk »
14 July 2009 · 7:21 am
Well, I know at least a few parents who will use this proposed legislation as an excuse to ban glitter from coming into their houses.
“But honey, we CAN’T do a craft project with glitter. The government says it might make you stupid.”
Me? I like glitter. But I’m subversive that way.(Lots of parents seem to really loathe glitter. I suppose it’s the fact that it’s almost impossible to totally vacuum out of carpeting.)
Closet Atheist »
14 July 2009 · 9:21 am
Is there no substitute for the lead-based products? Or is it that the substitute costs 2ยข more out of a $19.99 product that cost $2 to make and $8 to ship from China? One made in China because making and shipping it in the US cost $10.50?
Granted that lead isn’t dangerous like cyanide, but no one’s profit margins can justify the slow destruction of the brain, blood, and bones from lead.
CGHill »
14 July 2009 · 10:30 am
I have a problem with anything with a zero tolerance, simply because such things do not exist in nature, except perhaps at absolute zero.
You can minimize risks; you can’t eliminate them. CPSIA thinks otherwise, which, I submit, is prima facie evidence that it’s a bad bill.
Writer Chick »
14 July 2009 · 10:34 am
Welcome to ObamaWorld where we protect you from everything that you want in life. From crystal beads for your tutu to red meat. From cars that have leg room to cigarettes. The better to lengthen your life and make your term of slavery to the State that much longer. I wonder how lead is in that phoney birth certificate of his.
Annie
fillyjonk »
14 July 2009 · 10:51 am
CPSIA is scary, considering that they seem more likely to crack down on the parents trying to sell used baby clothes at a garage sale than some major corporation in some other country that has slipshod safety regulations.
I also know many people who sell handcrafted items who are very scared that they will be completely put out of business when this comes on-line, because they can’t afford the testing (even though they may use products that are generally considered to be safe, like wooden toys finished with natural beeswax).
anon »
14 July 2009 · 11:25 pm
When did CPSIA outlaw the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
The kids will be exposed to more lead from CFLs than they sparkly things even if they eat them.
Old Grouch »
15 July 2009 · 3:22 pm
@Atheist,
The problem is not (usually) “full-o-lead” products: We’ve taken a lot of lead out of stuff over the last 50 years.
The problem here is:
+ Residual lead that creeps in unintentionally during the manufacturing process. (That’s where that California-mandated lead warning you see on vinyl extension cords comes from.)
+ Super-sensitive detectors, that can detect concentrations equivalent to one glass of water in a swimming pool..
+ Zero-tolerance laws that don’t consider safety levels, or how a product is used.
+ Enormous expense of certifying small-production or one-of-a-kind older items.
+ Draconian penalties (hundreds of thousands of dollars) for ANY violations.
The result: Stupid stuff like Goodwill dumpstering all their children’s toys and used bookstores (and libraries!) throwing away any children’s book printed before the 1960s.
Virginia Postrel »
18 July 2009 · 7:45 pm
WriterChick, you can’t blame Obama for this one. This crazy law was passed with very little controversy and signed by President Bush.