[Grovenet] Save Resale Shops

[Greg & Cindy Gritton]

(I'm sorry it has taken a while to send this, but while I initially 
composed the majority of this the same day of your post, I have been busy 
and wanted to reread it prior to sending it. So, on to the reply:)

While I am hoping that things are not as dire as nart's petition states, 
there are still some big ambiguities and problems with the implementation.

I did read from nart's site, but also from the one you posted earlier at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html

and it is still seems to leave a lot open to interpretation.

The cpsc's own letter creates some of this problem:

"The new safety law does not require resellers to test children's products 
in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. 
However, resellers cannot sell children's products that exceed the lead 
limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead 
content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the 
products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do 
sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or 
criminal penalties."

Okay, again, this may seem overboard, but please hear me out.

The statement that they don't have to test only seems to apply to inventory 
taken in prior to the 10 Feb. deadline, again looking to the above letter.

Since the CPSC is stating that resellers should either avoid selling 
suspect products or test, can a reseller safely sell an item made in China 
without testing it as long as it isn't on the recall list? I ask this 
simply because most of the lead problems in toys have arisen from those 
produced in China.

With most of today's toys made in China (where most of the lead paint, etc. 
problems have been coming from), wouldn't this effectively mean that 
resellers would have to test for lead which would thus become very cost 
prohibitive as well as time consuming, thereby effectively leading to the 
closure of resale shops? At least one site sells kits for $12.99 for 8 
testers. That effectively adds $1.62 to the cost of every sale (and that's 
not adding in any for shipping of the kit). Since many stores run on a 
tight budget, they may not be able to afford this up front cost. Add to 
this their need to then keep a record of having tested it so that if the 
item shows up on the recall list in the future, they could show they had 
tested it and found it safe.

It is already illegal to sell toys on the recall list (at least here in 
Oregon you aren't allowed to sell them), and I know that the resale shops I 
visit are already using these, so the question still seems that if an item 
isn't on the recall list, and if the reseller doesn't test, would they 
still be in danger of prosecution if at some later date the item was found 
to contain lead? If so, then the CPSC's statement that resellers aren't 
required to test won't matter.

I'm sorry if I've taken a meandering path on this, and I apologize if I 
quickly wrote my first post, but I still have these unanswered questions.

I do feel strongly that items for children containing lead shouldn't be 
sold, but at what point do we say use your own common sense and better 
judgement on buying used items as long as it isn't on a recall list?

If you have more basic research than what is in the CPSC's own site, please 
let all of us know. I would be thrilled to learn if they have further 
clarified this issue, but at the moment, it still seems to place resellers 
in danger of prosecution because of the way their own letter is worded.

(4 Feb.)
As I have just again rechecked the site and they have finally made a more 
definitive statement, it would appear that hopefully, resellers won't be in 
the a fore mentioned danger, but when the CPSC's original letter was posted 
at the time I first wrote, the additional information was not contained on 
the bottom of their letter.

Thus, I would conclude that the actions of NARTs and individuals helped the 
CPSC realize that more clarification was truly needed and thankfully they 
have finally done so.

Sincerely,

Cindy Gritton

At 08:11 PM 1/26/2009 -0800, you wrote:
>Some research is seriously needed before talking definitively on a
>complicated at like the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
>Taking the word of NARTS as gospel is flawed and problematic.  From some
>very basic research, I've found that the claims made in your email (I've no
>idea if you wrote them or copied them from somewhere else) and those made on
>the NARTS website are patently false and bordering on scare tactics.
>
>Specifically, resellers and yard salers are *not* required to test products
>they sell.
>
>http://www.leadsafe.org/content/get_involved/index.cfm?pageId=256
>
>Resellers should check products they sell against a recall list of products
>to avoid selling those.  This is something they're already required to do
>under the Consumer Product Safety Act or they face civil and criminal
>penalties.
>
>Jeff
>
>_______________________________________________
>GroveNet mailing list
>GroveNet at rdrop.com
>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet