Talk:Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

Untitled

The name of the law is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, not the Consumer Protection etc. Act. I've changed the first sentence to reflect this, but the page title should be changed as well. Lynne Jorgensen (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

All that work just to notice this. Ugh!!! Thanks Lynne, consider it done. Ehusman (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Impact on Resale/Thrift Industry

Lots of sites that have grown up around home manufacture and resale are worried about the financial burden of lead testing requirements. Can somebody update the page to reflect this?

http://www.thesmartmama.com/bg/ http://www.thesmartmama.com/bg/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=195&Itemid=9

99.163.83.193 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure it can be done. An encyclopedia is not and cannot be a newspaper, and things are changing much too quickly to reflect the current events on this issue. Try Twitter! Ehusman (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory Testing

There's a lot of discussion on the web about retailers needing to test their products, and this just isn't part of the law. Section 102 of the statute narrowly defines who must test and certify products, and it includes importers, manufacturers, and private labels (rebranders) who release their products for comsumption through commercial distribution channels (e.g. a firm-to-firm transaction as opposed to a retailer-to-consumer transaction).

Compare the language in Secton 102 (Mandatory Testing) with that of 216 (Prohibited Acts). 216 includes the language "sell, offer for sale, or manufacture for sale," but 102 does not contain this language. Testing/certification is not mandatory for retailers or people who produce goods for direct sale to consumers, although their product must still comply with the lead limits.

Additionally, mandatory testing is only required for goods produced after 2/10/09 and not inventory on hand, whereas the prohibition of sale does apply to inventory on hand. A lot of people are extrapolating that you need to test all of your inventory and certify it before you can sell it, and that's just not accurate.

69.50.32.131 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)SWB

Sort of. The key phrases are "distributed in commerce" and "banned hazardous substance" ("firm-to-firm" is not specified). Retailers don't have to test as a matter of law, but as a practical matter of business, many of them do have to. The retailer owns the stuff in his inventory. In some cases, the manufacturer may refuse to do the testing; perhaps they have gone out of business, perhaps they haven't foreseen their product being sold into children's markets (e.g. aluminum foil being sold to schools as part of a science kit). The retailer is faced with the option of writing off the inventory or testing it. When they can afford it, many have been testing. Section 108 specifically says that "it shall be unlawful for any person to ... distribute in commerce [any product with certain concentrations of certain phthalates]." Unless they are going to apply Julie Vallese's test of "confidence", they are going to have to have a test to make sure. That, as the proponents have been saying, was the whole point of the law. And we haven't even gotten to the labeling section of the law, where there are specific requirements for retailers! Ehusman (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Some more sources

Walter Olson, writing in Forbes, has had some very good pieces about the subject that provide an overview of the problems with the Act, and the adverse effects it's had, and his website has lots of links to other stories: http://overlawyered.com/tag/cpsia/ THF (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Per WP:LEAD, the lead of the article should "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." This is a very controversial law, with far-reaching effects on small business, but there's no acknowledgement of it in the current version of the lead. THF (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Some libraries are removing children's books that were printed before 1986.

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Source. I can't add this to the article right now because I am topic banned from political articles, but perhaps someone else might like to add it. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Companies

A list of companies is not relevant, and stinks of POV-pushing. If such a is necessary for this article, then it must be A: limited in scope to companies which closed SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF the CPSIA, not merely "related to"; and B: it must reference direct statements by the companies in question, not tangential mentions in a summary article by a source with her own agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.35 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727152534/http://www.mpnnow.com/news/x1848774233/Lead-law-hits-thrift-stores to http://www.mpnnow.com/news/x1848774233/Lead-law-hits-thrift-stores

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)