Looking for debate participants

I would like to hold a CPSIA debate on my blog, Organic Baby Farm. I am looking for participants, especially someone to take the pro-CPSIA side. (Obviously I'm well in touch with plenty of eloquent people who could take the anti-CPSIA side.) I would like the debate to be kind of highbrow, full of facts and logic, with each side doing their best to persuade the reader. I will be moderating because it's easier than participating. :) (Yes, I'm lazy)

These are the terms of the debate.

The debate is in four rounds:
1st round: opening statements, limit 1000 words
2nd round: arguments, limit 2000 words
3rd round: rebuttals, limit 2000 words
4th round: closing statements, limit 1000 words

Each round will be published as two posts on my blog. They will be published at the same time but one will inevitably be a minute before the other, so the order in which that will happen will be determined by a coin flip. There will be a minimum of one day between rounds to allow for composition of posts.

I will act as moderator and will only edit statements for spelling. If there is a deeper problem with a statement (e.g. if it breaks one of the rules), publication of that round will be withheld until we can correct it.

Rules:
No ad hominem attacks on opponent
Avoid disparaging others
Keep to the word count limits
Cite and/or link all quotes and facts

If you are interested in being a participant in this debate, please email me at sarah.natividad -at- gmail.com.

For Safety and Security: Dana of Whimsical Walney, Inc.

For Safety and Security is an informal Q&A series that highlights some of the individuals who have been working on changing CPSIA.

As each new feature is posted, you'll see that each person has taken on a different role, from raising awareness of the concerns surrounding the CPSIA, to working with government officials, to helping small businesses regroup and examine their safety practices.

The common thread is the person's deep interest in helping companies and organizations of all sizes to stay in business making safe children's products. We hope you enjoy the series and welcome your comments.


The Basics

Name: Dana
Location: Near San Jose, CA
Company: Whimsical Walney, Inc.


The Details

What is your line of work?
I design and develop children's products that promote language development and imagination.

What lead you down that career path?
I have always been fascinated by both foreign languages and child development. In addition, I believe an imagination is a terrible thing to waste so I have been thinking about developing products for children that combine all three things for several years.

While Whimsical Walney may have started as an outdoor blanket company, I always had a vision of developing language-focused products. In 2008, I was able to realize part of my vision with the launch of my illustrated t-shirt line and I hope to be able to work through the CPSIA issues to see all of the goals I have for my products and company to fruition.

Where are you hoping to be in 10 years time?
In 10 years, I hope to have a team of people working with me to continue to spread Whimsical Walney's vision to let children play. I want to have a portfolio of products offered in more than a handful of languages that will foster a child's language development and imagination as well as promote multi-culturalism.


Just For Fun

What did you have for dinner last night?
Miso soup with tofu, panko chicken, garlic grean beans, and brown rice.

What was your high school self "most likely" to do?
My high school self was "most likely" to travel anywhere an airline ticket would take me; not much has change since high school.


Relationship with the CPSIA

How did you first hear about the CPSIA?
I had seen various bits around the web about saving handmade toys and handmade goods but didn't understand how far-reaching the law is until toward the end of 2008 when I started read more of the specifics. It was then that I realized it included my products as well.

How have you been involved in the cause?
I have been trying to do whatever I can to educate consumers and other small businesses by providing information and support.

What inspired you to get involved?
I was inspired to get involved because the public needs to know more about a law that impacts so many aspects of their lives. I am also appalled by the lack of communication and resources available to help small businesses work through the details of this poorly written legislation.

The ripple effects of this law would be bad in any economy, but in our current economic climate, it is devastating. I want to do whatever I can do to make an impact and change the CPSIA.

If no changes are made (regulatory or legislative), how will it effect you?
If no changes are made, I will have to close Whimsical Walney's doors permanently. The requirements of the law as written (both testing and labeling) are just too cost prohibitive for me to continue.

Valentine Tee
Luna B. Tee - Knoxville, TN
http://www.lunabtee.com

Virginia Chastain at Ginbug Bows

Acworth, GA

www.ginbugbowsnshoes.com

Endangered Lion
Cookiewonton - Atlanta, Georgia
cookiewonton.etsy.com

Bella Inspired Hand Painted Letters
Custom Room Decor by Jessa Stadtler
Southern California
http://www.bellainspired.com

CPSIA & THRIFT: A Call For Information...

Hey, all y'all. I want to try to collect a comprehensive list of thrift, resale, and consignment shops showing the effects of the CPSIA.

These could be donation refusals, an entire childrens department shutdown, or even a store closing. I'd even like to hear from/about those who are on the fence, just worried, or facing imminent trouble.

Please leave a comment on this post with any information you have, and let us know the status of your favorite used-product shopping venues and charities.

Thanks!

Perhaps I'm bitter, but...

I'd like to more publicaly address this comment that was left on a Pro-CPSIA blog post, today:

Truth is..

I'll have to worry way less about my kids having toxics put into their system (knowingly, or accidentally) by a toymaker.

You people who are whining about this putting you out of business need to buck up or close your doors.

No amount of sob stories from anyone about how this hurts their business trumps the health of my kids. NONE

My response:

I sympathize with the desire to keep your children safe...

But there are a few important point on why this law is not the answer:

1- Children are exposed to far more items than those sold as "childrens products".

2- Many of the best options for safe toys will become economically unfeasible to produce and sell. This is not a necessary side effect of saving
our children.

I repeat: It is absolutely possible to take steps to ensure toys are lead and phthalate free without putting so many small and micro businesses out of business.

3- The multitude of handmade products sold for children is a wonderful show of cultural and artistic diversity. To cut off the feasibility of such items is one major step toward packing our children away in a bubble of isolation.

4- The economic impact will have a profound effect on several thousands of families across the nation. These include (but are not limited to) employees of small businesses, employees of contracted manufacturers, moms who make blankets to pay for their grocery budget, and small retailers who have been running themselves to ragged working on ensuring compliance, and found out just last week that they need to review all their inventory for the now-retroactive phthalate requirements, as well.

As for the small manufacturers? Most of these are moms and dads, too. Many of them are as concerned as you are, but are battling this immensely illogical law and the volatile standards for implementation. Many had never heard of the concerns over things like phthalates until they stumbled upon some mention of the CPSIA in December or January. It's very difficult to address concerns and comply with a law you have never heard about, and, yes, there ARE still many affected who have yet to hear about it, or the implications for their own business.

And while you are celebrating the false security of the CPSIA, consider this:

Economic hardship and poverty take a very real toll on children- from lost health and wellness resources, to parents who are too stressed to connect with and care well for their children.

How at risk are your children, really? If this is a major concern, what efforts have you personally made to review the products you purchase and expose your child to? And how does that way against the economic price of the CPSIA?

I can't answer those questions for you, but do feel that they aren't being asked nearly enough.


Now, I need to get back to work redesigning my handmade toys because:

1- Having already redesigned for new safety concerns was not enough.
2- I want my toys to be compliant with the law.
3- I have every intention of fighting through and surviving for the next year. That is, until third party testing standards take effect, when it will become impossible. ($500 cloth ball, anyone?)


So congratulation on moving one step closer to the bubble, and pardon my bitterness. It's hard to be objective when something you love is sitting needlessly on death row.

Maybe I'm bitter. Right now? I feel entitled to a little bitter.

I'm not proposing we get rid of safety regulations, but the CPSIA needs to be ammended at a minimum. Better still, scrapped and re-written.

In the mean time, I'm going to work on childrens product safety and diversity by pushing for reasonable materials exemptions, component testing, and reasonable testing allowances for small run products.

Because I care about my kids, too.

-Hilary

CPSIA By The Numbers: Libraries

Esther over at Design Loft has crunched the CPSIA numbers for libraries:

Total library inventory: 34,668
Total est. juvenile inventory: 10, 601
Percentage of juvenile inventory: 31%

Estimate of inventory pre-1985: 75% or 7951 units

Now if we have to test pre-1985 inventory at $500/book: $3,975,375

Now, I am assuming we will have to do the certified laboratory testing for several reasons. The testing costs were not included in the yearly budget, so we would have to reopen it and appropriate funds to pay for it. It is a lengthy, messy process to add to the budget, so money realistically won't be available until Oct 1st, long after the certified lab testing goes into effect. Next, we would need to pay staff to go through all of the shelves and box up the books. Oh yeah, and pay for the boxes and ship them to a certified lab clear across the country. Did I mention this library is in rural Idaho? Shipping costs alone will kill us. The testing costs exceed the entire city budget, btw.

It is unlikely that the city will appropriate funds for testing. That leaves us with throwing out 75% of our juvenile section and replacing those books. We would still need to estimate close to $4 million dollars for replacement costs, if replacements can be found on all the titles. Plus we would need to pay staff to sort, box up/throw out books, buy replacements, and process them. And did I mention books are heavy. I would love to see a garbage truck pick up our trash can loaded up with books! Of course, if they are banned hazardous substances, we can't just throw them in the dumpster. We would need a hazardous materials removal specialist to do that....

And really, this starts to become silly. We don't regulate what books or audio visual materials a child can checkout. This brings our entire collection of 35,000 items under suspicion. What will the kids read while we are in the process of removing, testing, replacing thousands of books?

So our realistic choices are:
1. Shut down our children's section, or
2. Ban kids 12 and younger from the library.

Not so realistic considering how popular our library is with kids.

BTW, the hottest new read is 1984 by George Orwell. I think it would be good to send our Congressional Representatives a copy, just make sure it is printed pre-1985.

Read the whole thing here. Cross-posted at Organic Baby Farm.

CPSIA By The Numbers, Part 3: Scary Sounding Chemicals

This is part 3 in a n-part series called "CPSIA By The Numbers". Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. This series is also being cross-posted to Organic Baby Farm. Today's installment is more of a science post than a math post, I'm afraid; the next one will have more numbers, I promise. I went off on a bit of a tangent and it seemed better as its own post than when I tried to integrate it into the next batch of numbers.

--------------------

Boy, it sure seems like it's a dangerous world out there for our kids. Why, any number of dangers lurk all over the house, just waiting for the chance to grab our innocent children by the ankles and make them DIE. Right? Right???

And yet, we find that unprecedented proportions of children somehow make it to adulthood unscathed. How is that possible when we hear on the news about the incontrovertible scientific proof of the latest boogeyman coming after our kids?

One thing that I've noticed about human beings is our tendency to completely misjudge risk when we aren't actively thinking about it. We'll strap our child onto a wheeled hulk of metal and machinery and hurtle 80 miles an hour down the road to go buy organic produce for her to eat. We'll drink diet soda with our super-sized double-bacon-and-heart-attack cheeseburger. We'll use the potty, reach for the sink knob, turn on the sink and wash our hands with the latest antibacterial soap, and then with our newly clean hands touch the exact same knob to turn the sink off. People have a natural affinity for straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel whole. It's part of being human, and it's why turning to numbers to quantify risk is always a fascinating exercise.

Here's how the exercise typically goes: scientists will do a study, only to have a science reporter (usually defined as a person who got better grades in English classes than in Science classes) misreport their results. Science asks good questions, but a lot of the time, scientific research results in the answer, "We just don't know." "Scientists Did Study, Still Don't Know Squat" is not a very sensational headline, though, so it usually gets jazzed up a bit, into something like "Scientists Study Potentially Deadly Toxin," with the story going on to suggest that they just haven't found anything bad about it... yet. Misunderstandings like these are why so many people believe in "toxins"-- while "toxin" is a broad term for anything that can be poisonous, it is more often used as a sort of modern-day version of "demon". Toxins: they're in everything around you-- and only righteous actions can fend them off!

--------------------

So how can we know if something is actually bad for us?

First, we can start by ignoring rhetoric. Take it from someone who teaches people how to do it: you can "spin" the facts to make the most innocuous things sound bad. Watch as Penn and Teller get people to sign a petition against water, merely by calling it by the scarier-sounding name "dihydrogen monoxide" and giving some highly spun facts about it, such as that it's in every river, stream, lake, and ocean, and that hundreds of people a year die from accidental inhalation of it. You can read more horrible-sounding dihydrogen monoxide facts here. You may notice how similar they are to the scary rhetoric about phthalates.

Second, we can start by understanding the limitations of science. An experiment is set up with two hypotheses, or possible explanations. The "default" explanation, that random chance caused the thing you're investigating (English translation: "stuff happens") is called the null hypothesis and the thing you're trying to prove is called the alternative hypothesis. You either prove or fail to prove your alternative hypothesis with statistical certainty; you can't disprove it. Failure to prove is different from disproof in that failure to prove tells us nothing, while disproof tells is the hypothesis is false. So suppose we set up an experiment where the null hypothesis is that random chance is responsible for a reproductive defect (such as the epidemic of missing testicles among male members of Congress) and the alternative hypothesis is that phthalates are responsible for this defect. This experiment will either prove phthalates are responsible, or will tell us nothing. It cannot exonerate phthalates. That is why you will not find a single study showing that phthalates do not cause harm. However, if you see several studies with similar hypotheses, and none of them shows phthalates causing harm, it's pretty safe to conclude that phthalates don't.

One other limitation of scientific studies has to do with the sample that is studied. I could study a sample of children, for example, and conclude that 50% of all children in the U.S. have Asperger's Syndrome and the other half have food allergies, but I'd be soooo wrong because (a) my "sample" consisted entirely of my own kids and (b) there were only four of them. As a general rule, samples are more effective the larger they are and the more randomly selected they are. So when you see a study, look carefully at the sample size and the way it was selected. True random sampling isn't done due to consent issues, but think about who would volunteer for a study, and draw your own conclusions. When I was in college they used to advertise in the student paper for volunteers for various studies; they'd pay us $10 to push buttons with wires stuck to our heads for an hour. What college student would turn down an easy $10... and what professional wouldn't? If you didn't suspect you had a problem, or you didn't need the money, would you volunteer for a study?

Third, we can weigh scientific evidence and news rhetoric along with what we see with our own eyes. Headlines are constantly trumpeting new dangers to kids, but look around you. Are kids safer and healthier than they used to be? If 90% of carseats are indeed improperly installed, as is so often cited, how come kids seem to be safer in car accidents than they were back when carseats were easier to install? If phthalates cause reproductive harm to boys, and they've been around since the 1930's, and they're in everyone's bodies and all our rivers, how come the vast majority of men seem to have, ahem, no problem using their reproductive systems? Don't be afraid to ask those kinds of questions; give in to your inner scientist!

Observe your own world. When you hear that babies who get all lotioned up have elevated levels of phthalates, don't jump to "OhMyDeityOfChoice, GET THE LOTION OFF MY CHILD!!!!" And definitely don't jump to "I'll just switch to Super Eco-Organic Lotion because it's made with all natural ingredients, and it says 'Toxin Free' on the label!" Think instead, "Gee, all my brothers and sisters got lotioned up as babies, and judging by their own kids, looks like their reproductive systems did just fine. How bad are these phthalate things anyway?"

Finally, we must weigh the costs against the benefits. Phthalate exposure in utero has been shown to reduce anogenital distance in males (that's how far of a hike it is between the "waste disposal plant" and the "recreation area"), but phthalates are found in medical devices that save the lives of expectant mothers and their babies. Think it'd be worth losing those lives to try to make the average boy's perineum longer? Lead in bicycle tire valve stems makes them easier to machine. If a child's bike is taken away from him, he loses an opportunity for fun, safe exercise and for learning responsibility. Is losing the minuscule chance that your child might get lead poisoning on the off-chance he decides to eat his bike tire worth the consequent obesity and dependency that will be fostered in your child? Are you willing to pick weevils out of your flour bin and tend your friend who's ill with malaria in order to eliminate pesticides and preserve wetlands?

Imagine what a wonderful world it would be if all the evil "toxins" were exorcised... but afterward ask yourself, "And then what?" What would we be forced to sacrifice to achieve such millennial perfection? Anyone who answers that nothing would have to be sacrificed is selling something. It is an unbending law of the universe that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Hit NRDC Where It Hurts

The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) won their lawsuit yesterday to make the phthalates ban in CPSIA retroactive. With less than a week to go until Feb. 10, this "win" will cause major disruptions in supply for all kinds of baby feeding and care items.

Would you like to help get the NRDC back for what they've done?

NRDC is giving away onesies in exchange for donations to their lovely cause. If you donate $1, this will cost them money. Plus, you will get a onesie that you can submit for lead testing. If it fails, we can report them to their state's Attorney General for being in violation of CPSIA. Also, I and several others have requested that they provide a copy of their General Conformity Certificate (GCC). Their organization has claimed all along that the testing required to produce a GCC is neither onerous nor expensive, so surely they've had it done already... especially since they were the ones suing to make all the bans retroactive.

Cross-posted to Organic Baby Farm.

CPSIA And The Stochastic Approach

This is Part 2 of my series, CPSIA By The Numbers. Part 1 is here. This series is also being cross-posted to Organic Baby Farm.

Searching for certainty is an entirely noble human endeavor. We long for the days when we were younger, when Mom or Dad could hold us in their arms and we would know we were safe. As we become adults, we venture out into the cold, uncertain world, and eventually we learn to live there by sticking to the course we feel most likely to bring a good outcome.

Groups like Consumer's Union seem to me to be taking an immature approach to the problem of lead in children's products. They wanted CPSIA because they believed it would make us safe from all lead, forever. Like little children, they wanted Mommy and Daddy Congress to make it all go away, and they are mad at that bad bad lady Nancy Nord for not doing what Mommy and Daddy said. If only Congress had that power. Congress has the power to make laws, but they do not have the power to make people 100% safe. Even if CPSIA is fully implemented, we will not be 100% safe from lead. Setting aside the fact that most lead exposure comes from lead in house paint, let's take a look at why this is.

We are going to use what nerds like me call a "stochastic," or probability-based, approach. Probability is the most counter-intuitive branch of mathematics, so I'll do my best to explain this approach in layman's terms.

Suppose a clothing manufacturer, let's call him Ben, buys 10,000 metal snaps from a snap manufacturer, Jessica. Ben wants assurances that Jessica's snaps are CPSIA compliant to the 100ppm standard. So Jessica pulls out her XRF gun and tests 100 snaps (that's 1% of the snaps), and they all test around 60ppm, near but under the lead content limit.

Ben and Jessica now both believe all 10,000 snaps are compliant, but there's something they don't know. Due to random fluctuations in the lead content of the snaps, 200 of the 10,000 snaps exceed 100ppm. Neither Ben nor Jessica can know this, because they have no way to know without testing all the snaps. Now, if Jessica wants absolute certainty, she can test each and every one of the 10,000 snaps. But Jessica does not have time for this, and neither does Ben. Also, if Jessica were to task one of her employees to do this, it would raise the cost of the snaps so much that Ben could not afford them. So Ben and Jessica feel this is good enough.

Now Ben has used the snaps in his clothing line. He sends 25 garments that have 4 snaps each (total of 100 snaps) off to Jennifer Taggart of The Smart Mama for testing in compliance with CPSIA. When he gets the results back, he finds that two of the snaps have failed.

Now Ben is in a deep fix. The failed snaps were on a size 4 green shirt and a size 10 blue shirt, but it would make no sense to pull all the size 4 green shirts and size 10 blue shirts, because the 200 defective snaps are now randomly distributed throughout his entire clothing line. Ben can have every one of the snaps tested and pull the garments that have failed snaps. Or he can pull the entire line, losing all the money he'd hoped to make from it. Or he can sell the clothing anyway and hope nobody notices a few defective snaps.

Here's what Ben and Jessica didn't know, but we can figure out:*
The original testing results were somewhat of a fluke. The chance that all 100 snaps in any given sample would pass, given the numbers we chose at the outset, was actually only about 13%. This means that in any other sample of 100 snaps, the chance is about 87% that at least one of them will fail. If Ben sells his clothing line and the CPSC comes by and randomly tests 100 of his snaps, he has an 87% chance of them finding a failed snap, forcing him to recall the entire line. If there were an 87% chance of rain today, you'd bring your umbrella. This makes selling the clothing line untenable, because CPSC audits are not random. Perhaps Jessica also supplies another clothing company that ended up doing a recall because of lead in the snaps, and that puts all the other companies Jessica supplies under the microscope.

So, having been burned, Ben and Jessica resolve to do something about the problem. Jessica can get more expensive, purer metal, so that there are only 10 defective snaps out of every 10,000. Jessica can also test more snaps. The more snaps Jessica tests, the greater the chances she'll find defective ones; but unless she tests them all, she has no way of knowing whether she's gotten them all-- and one might slip through and jeopardize Ben's clothing line again. In fact, even if Jessica is able to reduce the number of defective snaps to 10 out of 10,000 and tests 500 snaps from every 10,000, she still runs a 40% chance of finding a defective snap in her testing. Ben's safer now, but if he keeps his testing regimen unchanged, he still has a 10% chance of finding defective snaps in his clothing line. That's down from the 87% chance he had before, but it's not certainty. Ben's financial backers (maybe a bank, maybe his family) might not find palatable a 10% chance that the entire clothing line will be unsalable. That's like rolling a pair of dice and hoping it doesn't come up with a sum of 5.

It gets worse. Suppose Jessica gets really zealous and decides to not only improve the quality of her metal so that there are only 10 defectives in 10,000, but she also decides to test 1000 out of every 10,000 snaps. (Assume for the moment that the extra cost of all this doesn't bankrupt Jessica or turn off her customers.) Now it's Jessica that has the problem: every time she runs a test of 1000 snaps, she has a 63% chance of finding at least one defective snap. She can throw out the defective snaps as she finds them, and since we know there are only 10, eventually she'll get them all, though as a practical matter it'll be easier to just test every snap than to keep testing lots of 1000 snaps. But unless Jessica tests every snap, she will not know she has found them all. Remember, Jessica does not know exactly how many defective snaps there are in each batch of 10,000. We know because in this example we're the omnipotent observer, and we set the conditions of the problem. But as a practical matter, we don't know how many defectives are out there in any given batch of anything!

Jessica knows her snaps are (mostly) safe. She tests them over and over and gets pass, pass, pass, pass, pass. But Jessica still cannot guarantee Ben that his product line won't be jeopardized by using her snaps, no matter how much she tests and tests and tests, unless she tests all the snaps one by one. Ben is in the same fix if Jessica cannot test all the snaps: he cannot guarantee that even if his lot of samples passes testing, that there are no defective snaps in the entire batch. The only way to guarantee it is for somebody to test all 10,000 of the snaps.

Bottom line: it is mathematically impossible to find all defective objects without going to the expense of testing them ALL. And that's assuming testing is 100% accurate, which it's not. And to add insult to injury, the more zealously you test by sampling, the more confused you will be about the safety of your product. CPSIA was supposed to reduce confusion about product safety, but now you have mathematical proof that it does exactly the opposite.


Now we apply our findings to the issue of protecting children from lead exposure.

In practice, Jessica can only test samples of her snaps. And CPSIA only requires Ben to test samples of his shirts. There is a probability, however small, that a defective snap will slip past both Jessica's AND Ben's testing, and be discovered by, say, a consumer group doing in-store testing as a public service. This will put both Ben and Jessica in a real fix. They both did their due diligence under CPSIA. Ben did all the required testing, and he vetted his supplier properly. Since suppliers aren't liable under CPSIA, Jessica went above and beyond the call of duty. And still a defective snap got through. And think about the retailer of Ben's clothing line. Ben provided a 100% accurate General Conformity Certificate-- it was based on tests run by a third party, which turned up no lead in the snaps. The retailer had every reason to believe that Ben's clothing line was perfectly safe-- and is now in jeopardy along with Ben.

Let's put some numbers to this. Suppose Jessica decides that testing samples of 200 snaps is adequate, and Ben still tests 100 snaps on the garments in his line; and let's suppose that Jessica used the purer metal so there were only 10 defective snaps in the lot of 10,000. The chance that both their tests detect no defective snaps is 74%, meaning that they stand about a 1 in 4 chance of actually, unknowingly passing a defective snap on to the public. If you were a retailer, would you want to take that chance? And that's just one clothing line. If the retailer carries 20 children's clothing lines similar to Ben's and they all have the same chance of having undetected lead in the snaps, it is very nearly certain that something in the retailer's store is noncompliant. The retailer is going to be just fine-- unless, of course, somebody spreads rumors that their store is noncompliant. If the CPSC or the state Attorney General decides to check their store for noncompliant clothing instead of just checking their GCCs, they are so totally screwed.

Thus we see that CPSIA, strict and wasteful as it is, is still not capable of preventing lead exposure. And what's worse, it holds over each manufacturer's and retailer's head a significant chance that even if they do everything right, they can still be fined, or worse, jailed. People in business are used to taking risks, but that doesn't mean they're all willing to take the largest possible risks.

Sorry, Consumer's Union, your Mommy and Daddy are only human after all.



* Mathematics afficionados will recognize this as a binomial probability distribution with n=100 and p=.02, under the assumptions that defective snaps are indistinguishable from good snaps, and that XRF testing is perfect at detecting lead levels (it isn't; it does 95% confidence intervals, making these results even more uncertain).

CPSIA By The Numbers, Part 1: How Much Safer Will CPSIA Make Us?

This is part 1 of some unknown number of parts in a series, "CPSIA by the numbers" and is cross-posted at Organic Baby Farm.

I decided I'd take a closer look and see just how much safer CPSIA would make us if it had been in place in 2008.

First, I made a list of every recall that occurred in 2008. (Yes, it took all day. I have a twisted ankle so I needed an excuse to sit down.) I got the info from the CPSC's website and for each recall jotted down a short description of the item, the hazard for which it was recalled, the number of items recalled, whether CPSIA might possibly have prevented it, how many injuries and how many deaths resulted from it, whether the recall was voluntary or not, and a quick note about what types of injuries were sustained (so that I could distinguish between bruises and broken bones).

Once I had my list in the spreadsheet, I set about analyzing the data. There were 388 recall notices (some of the notices had multiple item recalls on them, for example if they were recalling more than one color of item). Together these recalls represented 31,100,159 individual products, that resulted in 665 injuries and 7 deaths. Most of the recalls (76% of them) had no injuries or deaths associated with them. That means only 24% of the recalls happened as the result of an injury or death.

A quick note about voluntary vs. involuntary recalls. There was only ONE involuntary recall in all of 2008, and it was from a company that had had multiple large recalls in a short period of time and gone out of business. The company that bought its assets refused to conduct the recall, but the retailers jumped right in and went ahead with it, in cooperation with the CPSC. And this one recall was for a bassinet with a strangulation hazard, from which 2 kids had died.

Another point that bears making is that most, but not all, of the recalls for lead paint and lead exposure were ones that would have been prevented by CPSIA. 90% of them would have been (63), but 10% of them (7) were for items definitely not intended for children, such as key chains and candle charms. Wherever there was doubt whether an item might be a "children's item" I pre-emptively ruled that it was a children's item. So for example the Harry Potter bookends that were recalled for lead paint got classed as a children's item for purposes of my analysis. There was one injury from lead exposure from the non-CPSIA lead violations; I didn't count it as one that CPSIA would have prevented, because it was from exposure to a lead-containing adult product (a keychain, in this case).

Of the 63 recalls that would have been prevented by CPSIA, only 1 resulted in an injury (a child ingested lead paint from a crib and had elevated blood levels of lead). This means that had CPSIA been in place for 2008, one child would have been helped.



Think about that: all the expense to which we are going, all the ruination of all the businesses, all of that would only have helped ONE small child be safer.


Now think about how many children we could help if we instituted a lead paint abatement program. According to CDC data, in 2006 there were 39,526 children with blood levels of lead in excess of 10 ug/dl (the level of concern). If we are truly concerned about lead poisoning in children, why don't we start with the 39,525 children who did NOT contract lead poisoning from children's goods?

------

QUESTION: Trinlayk from Twitter writes: "but still ONE injury from ONE product that would have been covered under this law".

RESPONSE: I'm a big fan of human life, and of saving whomever we can. I don't think lead poisoning is in any way a good thing, and if I were Empress Of The Universe I would order that no child be subjected to lead poisoning. However, think of the billions of dollars that will be wasted on the pre-emptive testing of so many lead-free items that MAY have saved this one child (who, it should be remembered, didn't die)-- and I say "may" because we have no guarantee that unscrupulous manufacturers might make a lead-free sample for testing while still using lead paint on the rest of the run-- think of all the billions of dollars. Now imagine that we took 1/1000 of that (still millions of dollars) and spent it on eradicating lead-based paint in old homes where children live. Sure as hell we'd save more than one child from lead poisoning.

It's a nice sentiment to say "even one is one too many," but to save just one is it worth bankrupting ourselves and putting ourselves in a position where we can't afford to save the thousands of others?

---------

Do you have questions that you'd like to see answered in this series? Email me with the subject "CPSIA By The Numbers" or Twitter me @curiouswork, or leave them in the comments.

Relief in sight?

Today is a day of euphoria and caution, with a little twist of support that could potentially bring hope to many.

This is a good time to make peace a befriend those who might otherwise cut us down.

I'm shifting the direction and focus of Endangered Whimsy. While I still wish to spotlight endangered products and businesses, nothing is as cut and dried as it once seemed.

A few others have agreed to join me in authoring this blog. We'll work together to explore the day-to-day impact of this law, and share thoughts, perspective, and insights from the micro/hobby business corner of the ring. Stay tuned.

-Hilary
aka Blynken & Nod

A simple wish..

Happy blog-in day, everyone.

Work together.

Laugh in spite.

Learn everything.

Forgive the situations of friends.

Reach out to all.

Hold your children.

Never, ever stop fighting for the things you love.

Best wishes,

hilary

(a.k.a. Blynken & Nod)

The human cost of the CPSIA

In response to those who might write us off as putting profits over people, a note on finding balance.

This is the FAQ page from the National Center for Children in Poverty:

http://www.nccp.org/faq.html

Two important points:

1- The official poverty guidelines are terribly outdated. To address this, they use a classification of "low income". From question #5:

"Low income is defined as having income below twice the federal poverty level—the amount of income that research suggests is needed on average for families to meet their basic needs."

For a family of four, in 2008 that was $42,000, and 39% of our nation's children fall into that category.


2- The effect of economic hardship on children, copied directly from this page:

"What are the effects of economic hardship on children?

Economic hardship and other types of deprivation can have profound effects on children's development and their prospects for the future—and therefore on the nation as a whole. Low family income can impede children's cognitive development and their ability to learn. It can contribute to behavioral, social, and emotional problems. And it can cause and exacerbate poor child health as well. The children at greatest risk are those who experience economic hardship when they are young and children who experience severe and chronic hardship.

It is not simply the amount of income that matters for children. The instability and unpredictability of low-wage work can lead to fluctuating family incomes. Children whose families are in volatile or deteriorating financial circumstances are more likely to experience negative effects than children whose families are in stable economic situations.

The negative effects of low income on young children are troubling in their own right, but they are also cause for concern because they are associated with difficulties later in life—dropping out of school, poor adolescent and adult health, and poor employment outcomes. Stable, nurturing, and enriching environments in the early years help create a sturdy foundation for later school achievement, economic productivity, and responsible citizenship.

Parents need financial resources as well as human and social capital (basic life skills, education, social networks) to provide the experiences, resources, and services that are essential for children to thrive and to grow into healthy, productive adults—high-quality health care, adequate housing, stimulating early learning programs, good schools, money for books, and other enriching activities. Parents who face chronic economic hardship are much more likely than their more affluent peers to experience severe stress and depression—both of which are linked to poor social and emotional outcomes for children."

I know that lead exposure and poisoning is way more prevalent than it should be, but so are the effects of economic hardship on children.

If this issue isn't fixed, it will get much worse. I couldn't say how many households will fall into the low income category, but I do know that a large portion will have to make stressful adjustments in their lives to account for the loss of income.

We need to address BOTH concerns, and the economic tole IS a valid concern.. on a very, very, very human level.

So what's the deal?

This article in Forbes Magazine is an excellent source of information, and a great explanation for all those who wonder, "What's all the fuss about?"

Scrap The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

Many thanks to Walter Olson for his understanding, insights, and help in spreading the word.

Children/Baby custom bedding
Missy Weitzmann - Tidewater VA
www.syhocustoms.com

bug & goose- Portland, Oregon
www.bugandgoose.com

"The products are created by me using pre-tested materials"

Soft Headband w/ silk flower & Tulle TuTu

Karla Allen — Pleasanton, Ca

http://shopLillianas.com

RAZZ Reversible baby sling by babe-a-gogo

Kelley Frisch - Central New York
http://babeagogo.etsy.com

Holly Arjoonsingh - Rogers, MN
www.greenwrapz.com

"I handmake to order blankets, bibs, burp cloths, appliqued onesies and baby caps using 100% certified organic cotton and 60% hemp/ 40% silk blend charmeuse satin. The printed fabrics I use are GOTS certified. The CPSIA regilations set the tested limit for lead at 600 parts per million (ppm), to be reduced to 300 in August 2009. GOTS maximum lead allowance is 1 ppm for outerwear and 0.2 ppm for all other fabrics!"

From Diana:

I'm a retired grandmother who depends on my sewing skill to supplement my social security check. I spend winter months sewing these so I have an abundant supply to sell at my local farmers market in the summer. Children love to wear these colorful, unique and fun clothes. Moms and grandmoms love to see the little ones in them. Since I only ever use damaged (or "cutter" quality) linens that can't be used as they were originally intended, I keep tons of fabric out of the landfills.

Elspeth Dress - Sweetie Pie Design
Overland Park, Kansas
sweetiepiedesign.com

Wooden Barnyard Set
Joshua VanderKlok - Grandville Michigan

www.dadswoodentoys.etsy.com

Oopsie Baby! Snack Mat
Erica - Phoenix, AZ
www.babybeesboutique.etsy.com

Little Creek Boutique - Provo, UT
www.littlecreekboutique.com

Bean Bag Set, Vanilla Wishes

Rita Donis - Imperial, Missouri

http://www.vanillawishes.etsy.com

Child Patchwork And Chenille Scarf

Baubles And Bits - Rochester, New York
http://www.baublesandbits.etsy.com

Wendy Romero, owner/artist
Bobs and Bits - New Orleans, LA
www.bobsandbits.com

Baby Leather Moks

Connie Jensen - Omaha, NE/New Braunfels, TX
www.scandeez.com
www.scandeez.etsy.com

Rebeca Moya-Lopez - Miami FL

http://moyasorganicbaby.blogspot.com
www.moyasorganicbaby.etsy.com

Clutch Balls

Jill Chuckas - Crafty Baby (R), LLC

www.craftybaby.com

Cutie Pie Change Purse
Ruth Kubierschky - North Reading, MA
RuthsCreations.etsy.com

Wilburforth the Tooth Fairy Pocket Monster
Kelli - Orlando, FL
www.redmarionette.com

Christie Archer

Kustom Kids Boutique
www.KustomKidsBoutique.etsy.com

Sky and Sea girls' tunic top

Generations Tie Dye, Rockville, MD
http://www.generationstiedye.etsy.com
http://generationsmomnbaby/etsy.com

Earthly Beginnings Endangered Species Tees
Guissell Torres - Astoria, NY

www.earthybeginnings.com

Soft Texture Blocks
Linda Burgard - Park City, KY
http://poppypatch.etsy.com

Rachael Daniel - Rancho Cucamonga, CA

www.myhatty.com

DeAnna - North Carolina

www.raspberryjamcloth.com

This End Up Diaper Covers

Denise M Cole - Shiloh, OHIO

www.this-end-up.com

Knickerdoodies - South Texas
www.knickerdoodies.com

Dana - Atlanta, GA
plum.tree.studio
www.plumtreestudio.blogspot.com

Candied Cranberry Frill 'er Up Couture Tutu
Angela Leonardo - Plymouth, MI
www.frillerupcouture.com

Beth- Normal, IL
http://psbbdesigns.etsy.com

Kristina - Maryville, TN
http://1MaddieAndMe.etsy.com

Little Girl Friends
Denise - Hawaii

http://dmollison.etsy.com

16" Blonde Waldorf Doll

Lyneya's Toys - Apple Valley, MN

http://lyneya.etsy.com

The ella bean halter dress
Amy Duke - Morristown, TN)

www.ellabeanshop.etsy.com

www.ellabeanshop.com

Holiday Rush

Due to the current workload in my shop, I will not be posting the new submissions until this weekend, after the worst of the Christmas work rush is over.

Don't let this stop you from dropping by and sending in your wonderful products. My thoughts and best wishes are still with all of you, and I am very excited to fight this together!

Merry Christmas,

Hilary

Blynken & Nod

Hydrangea Cluster Adjustable Headband
Cherry Blossoms Hair Accessories - Lexington, VA
http://www.CherryBlossomsDesign.Etsy.com

Custom Denim Owl Applique 3-piece Set
MeandMyGirls - Tennessee
http://meandmygirls.etsy.com

Reversible Children's Apron with Name and Cupcake Applique
Jessica - Butterfly Baby Place - Maryland

http://butterflybabyplace.etsy.com

Snowflakes BabyBean Poncho

Lil Bean - Edmonton, Alberta
http://LilBeanBaby.etsy.com

Lil' Bean on the Canada Connection:

I make items for babies and children that will certainly be endangered, even though I live in Canada, as the bulk of my sales is to clients in the U.S.

Baa Baa Black Sheep Onesie
Crib Rock Couture - Westlake Village, CA

http://cribrockcouture.com/

From Tracy, the founder and CEO:

Every single product we make is made in the USA, most of it in our studio in Westlake Village,CA. Always has been. Because of our extensive line of products and our press, many believe our company is much larger than it is, or a small division of a large corporation. It is not. I started out of my home in 2005 and grew the business to the point that we moved to a 2500 sq. ft. space late last year.

Even with the failing economy and the multitude of other hurdles I've encountered over the past few years I've always been willing to forge on, but this latest legislation could be the breaking point for me and for many other made in the USA artisans and manufacturers.

Topknots Creations for Kids
Laura Kenney-Miesner - Redford, MI
http://topknots.etsy.com

Burp the Baby Raspberry Disco Set

Jennifer - North Carolina
www.bundlebaby.etsy.com

On Whimsy...

Why "Whimsy"?

Whimsy is...
Fanciful
Light-hearted
Curious
Intriguing
Peculiar
Imaginative
A hope
A dream
A desire
A twirl and a twist with a flip of your wrist!
Now there, you've got it!
Who cares if they've bought it?
The company you're keeping is good-neighbor seeking, and we all wish to see the great inner thinks that twee and whir and jingle in your melon (some say head), you're no felon! (You don't use lead!) So come share what you're making, and we'll all be note-taking. Not to thief off your labors, but for the wonder and savor..

of all the wonderful tweaks and thinks and splashes and rethinks and delights and rewrites!

For the colors and cackles and fuzzy tickling debacles that sing to that well hidden part of our souls. Which part? That one that paints tempura blue on our toes while teacher is "secretly" picking her nose.

Yes, that same part that jumps at the mention of balloons and buffoons and bassoons and doubloons and collapses in giggles over slimy worm wiggles and the forbidden wall squiggles that Bobby created after his paper was torn by Josephine's scorn over having to wait TEN FULL MINUTES for Kate to whistle down her wandering, meandering, daydreamy path back to class with the coveted hall pass so Josephine could RUN! while Bobby cowers by the wall, building a standard unit tower full of hope that the slope will not crash the the ground revealing the orange doodled image of a cowboy and his rope chasing a bull toward the books in the corner, and DRAT! Help me hide this! Here comes Ms. Horner!

and SPLAT!

Where was I? Oh yes. My child is hungry, I have orders to fill, the bills need paying, and we're out of milk.

But that won't stop me from returning to Kindergarten tomorrow.

Handmade for children is not simply a matter of frugal necessity, or utilitarian tradition. Creating for our children, and the children of others, is our way of passing on the memories, traditions, designs, and imagined worlds from our own childhoods.

This is the whimsical side of our culture, and it's about to take a major blow.

The culture of the US is absolutely a patchwork of rainbow wonder. It is impossible to blur out the image and call it "blue". Diversity is our tradition, and it shouldn't be limited to adulthood, nor should our children be forced to play with standard big-box-plastic toys for lack of options.


Please help us preserve our traditions.

As an Artisan I ask.

As a Parent I beg.

Magic Fairy Wands

FairyPrincessShoppe - Illinois

http://FairyPrincessShoppe.etsy.com

Hand-Batiked and Dyed Shirt

Lori Birmingham - McHenry, IL
http://alfabettezoope.com

Patriotic Baby Socks

The Crocheted Baby (Pam Daley) - Colorado
http://www.TheCrochetedbaby.etsy.com

Davina Perret
Toddler Tailoring - Eugene, OR
www.toddlertailoring.blogspot.com

Garden Fairies Hand-painted Wooden Wall Letters
Posh Dots - Montross, Virginia
http://PoshDots.etsy.com

Fairy Bendy Doll

Dannielle Roach -St. Louis, MO

www.PrincessNimbleThimble.com

Pirate Duck Soap in a Boat
The Plum Privy - Lewisburg. OH
http://PlumPrivy.etsy.com

Conquering Britain
JulesCrafts - Raleigh, NC
http://JulesCrafts.etsy.com

Crabby Onesie/Shirt
Jen Goldston - Pittsburgh,PA
http://www.littlepods.etsy.com

Chick A Dee Sun Dress
Banana Ice Cream - Halifax, NS
bananaicecream.etsy.com

Matryoshka doll clips
Ladybug Limited - Corvallis, Oregon
ladybuglimited.etsy.com

Daniela Shelton
Hasenpfeffer Incorporated
hasenpfeffer.etsy.com

Everyday Variety

Stephanie - Jacksonville Florida
http://supanerdstef.etsy.com

Dine.n.Doodle Chalk Mat - Rockin' Robots
Lil.B.Designs - Gloucester, Virginia
http://lilbdesigns.etsy.com

BeeBowtiful
Christy Goins - Chesapeake, Virginia

beebowtiful.etsy.com

Happy Birthday Cupcake Dress
Lillifee Boutique - Georgia
www.lillifeeboutique.etsy.com

Boutique Custom Bracelet
DaNae - American Fork, UT
http://missmaceymoo.etsy.com

Set of 6 Linocut Bookplates for Children

Peaseblossom Studio - Riverside, CA
http://peaseblossomstudio.etsy.com

Doll and Bird Bag
Starlight Arts - Missoula, MT
http://www.ettabetta.etsy.com

Ready-to-Go Coloring Tote - Traffic

Robin Woods - Houston, Texas

http://whimbrella.etsy.com

TweedleBunny Plush Toy
Toni Swedberg - Montana
http://tweedlebee.etsy.com

Emma Pouch Sling from Love, September

Phoenix AZ
http://loveseptember.etsy.com

Itsy Bitsy Owls and Apples Spy Bag
Babyloveblankies - Kingsland, GA
http://babyloveblankies.etsy.com

Lally Olive, a petulant monster
canoo in Asheville, NC
http://canoo.etsy.com

The Gigi Dress in Kensington
Shelagh - Florida
http://UnePetiteEtoile.etsy.com

It's a Jungle Wash Cloths
Elizabeth Fraijo
Oregon
http://sugarplumdreams.etsy.com

"Claudia"
Pam - Maryland

http://yoborobo.etsy.com

Infant/Baby Head and Neck Support Pillow
Amanda
Florida
SygnetCreations http://sygnetcreations.etsy.com

Get Your Pirate On Gift Set

Natasha Henry - Victoria, Canada
http://herflyinghorses.etsy.com

Hoots the Owl
Alayna - Phoenix, AZ
www.zadyball.com

Vintage Paper Dolls - Chenille Baby Bib
COLBY LANE DESIGNS - IOWA

http://www.colbylanedesigns.etsy.com

Upcycled Menswear Tunic Dress for Girls

Lillipopsdesigns - Tacoma

http://lillipopsdesigns.etsy.com

Coral Morning Glory Chenille Blanket
materials: 100% cotton fabric, 100% cotton chenille, poly thread
Turtle Park Tots - Denver, CO
http://turtleparktots.etsy.com

Single Flyer - Airplane
BuggaLove - Pennsylvania

http://BuggaLove.etsy.com

Olive & Ollie

Cincinnati, Ohio

www.oliveandollie.etsy.com

www.oliveandollie.blogspot.com

the traveling talents - hand painted wooden doll family
Michelle Crafton - Brooklyn, NY

http://goosegrease.etsy.com

Little Ladybug
Emily Barker - Eagle, Idaho
http://squaresofflair.etsy.com

Wooden Train Engine
Lisa & Theresa - Philidelphia, PA
http://oopsthatsart.etsy.com

Candy cane dream
Kristen Chalmers
London Ontario
www.planetplayground.etsy.com

Pink Lady Apple - Gourmet Felt Food
Cecile in Princeton, NJ
http://JustFeltHungry.etsy.com/

"Plenty Big Flannel Blanket"
Ariella Fiore, Los Angeles

www.thequiltingmama.com

Goldfish and Stripes Boutique Bib
Sarah in Grand Rapids, Michigan
http://littlethingsboutique.etsy.com

Ladybug bib and diaper set

jojosmom in Farmers Branch
http://jojosmom.etsy.com

Scavenger Cards
Hilary Williams, Salt Lake City, UT
http://blynkenandnod.etsy.com

Endangered- About This Blog

We love children.

We love creating for children.

We want our children, and the children who use our products, to be safe and healthy.

We believe in the importance of exposing our children to the beauty of the living and evolving creative efforts of artisans.

We will fight for the right of every parent and child to purchase and use handmade goods.

We will fight for our own right to share our gifts by creating and selling handmade goods for children.

As of February 10th, 2009, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act will require that all products for children be tested by the batch for lead and other toxins. While we support the cause of safety, the required testing is cost prohibitive for most handmade goods which are, primarily, made in small batches or are entirely unique.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of mixed information regarding who this will effect, and how extensively it will be enforced, but one thing has become very clear: This law makes no provisions or allowances for small production concerns.

We care about the handmade cause and the safety of children. We also care about abiding by the law. As a result, on February 10th, all items and artisans featured on this blog are in danger of extinction.

Please help us fight for an amendment of the CPSIA that will allow for more reasonable measures of compliance on the handmade level.

Thank You