Hi Elaine, what is the liability of a Salvation Army or Goodwill if they don't sell the clothes but instead give them away? There is still an obvious demand for these clothes, so maybe 98% of the items in the store are priced, and kids clothes are not (with a limit of two items per day)?

When I first glanced at your article, my reaction was..."you've got to be joking" until I realized you were not. Well, we will just have to find some loophole. They appear to work well for corporations and top paid executives. We won't call it a parachute of course, but surely we can find a way to help the disadvantaged as well as struggling families keep their kid's clothed.

Elaine,

This would be a big blow for many families. I have bought and sold things at the mentioned Kid-to-Kid stores as well as many other second hand stores here in Utah. I have even donated my time to non-profit second hand stores to help out.

Maybe we could start with new clothing and then after a given amount of time to allow for the supply chain to fill back up with inventory we could make it a little broader.

This will still hurt the independent children's clothing makers (I know some that make dresses and such for special occasions).

So the other idea would be to test the materials, but the materials may be used for other clothing besides for kids.

This is simply not an easy problem to fix. Anyway we look at it, it will more than likely impact the cost of clothing.

I understand this is a safety issue and is affecting more families than Congress may realize. To impose such a regulation will provide additional protection to children however will not discourage families from exchanging items between families (no exchange of $$).

With this new regulation, and by removing the means for some families to provide basic necessities for their children, is an alternative solution being offered or provided(or another regulation being passed) that will help these struggling families? If something is being taken away shouldn't it be replaced with alternative means?

Thank you all for your excellent comments and questions.

Paul, I'm not sure about giving clothing away. I haven't seen anything on that issue.

Billie and Bill, I'm afraid that struggling families, small businesses, and nonprofits are the losers in this. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is considering a reprieve for clothing and toys made of natural fibers such as wool and wood.

"Clothes made of cotton but containing dyes or noncotton yarn, for example, still might have to be tested, as would clothes that are cotton-polyester blends," said Stephen Lamar, executive vice president of the American Apparel and Footwear Association.

In a Redding.com article today, it states that clothing and thrift trade groups say the law is flawed because it was rammed through Congress too quickly. The groups say the law should be changed so that it applies to products manufactured after Feb. 10, not sold after that date.

Vicki, you make a good point, but I haven't heard of any assistance regarding the fallout of this regulation. I understand the intent totally. Unfortunately, the fiasco created with tainted Chinese imports has put us in this position. Protecting children is a prime concern, however, there should be some compromise consideration during a transition period.

Thank you for bringing this to light. This law could potentially have a devastating effect on an already struggling economy.

And yes, the China fiasco, as you called is mostly resonsible for this but unfortunately, it's U.S. companies being punished. This law does not apply to items produced internationally, only to U.S. produced products. See something wrong with this picture?

The act itself: Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
http://tinyurl.com/7l4ehh

Congress would basically need to change the law it just passed, which applies retroactively for all goods produced prior to Feb 10 09.

Upon closer reading, seems to hit not only thrift/consignment stores, but garage sales, any online/offline auction sites, craft marketplaces, or flea markets as well? Would be interesting to hear from the Etsy, Craft Magazine, eBay crowd as much as others.

Some groups heard rumbling for fixes:

Handmade Toy Alliance
http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org
(Mounted a Write Congress campaign)

Baby Cheapskate
http://babycheapskate.blogspot.com/2009/01/end-of-kiddie-consignment-shops.html
(Started an online banner/petition campaign)

National Assn. of Resale and Thrift Shops.
http://www.narts.org

That sourcing issue gets murky. The new regulations require certificate of compliance, but many of these goods won't meet them, which basically creates mounds of potential waste automatically.

Assuming the goods are fine with no trace amounts of harmful materials, the stores would be barred from selling them, yet lack the means to distribute them effectively. So first guess: violations of other laws in the process (depending upon state/locality), the least of which include the landfill abuses.

The aggrieved parties don't appear to argue against the need for quality of standards. Concern-- starting with the clothing manufacturers and thrift store groups-- rightly starts with the cost of implementation and burden imposed for maintaining the standards. Cost and availability of product testing resources not only could slow distribution (for those with the means to go through them), but raise other barriers while trying to eliminate the original harms intended.

Worth noting: CPSC actually played here some 10 years ago
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml00/00018.html

conducted a study and developed draft legislation for state governments only focused on commercial entities (including thrift stores) selling or providing harmful kids products violating federal safety regulations, in part, to make enforcement easier. They recognized at the time anything broader would prove difficult at best.

This new "hazardous" category of products, defined simply on the basis of "non-tested" when sourcing itself isn't an issue, seems like a trapdoor to other areas ahead. Also not sure if CPSC's consideration of exempting goods from natural materials would consider exposure and storage issues as those products move through their lifecycles, especially since the law applies to new products as well?

Given increased awareness of harms (lead, phthalates, etc.), not surprised scope expanded. Just frustrating that balancing public good without social good input seems to result in new harms here.

Paul- That would not work for a couple of reasons. Effective Feb10, if you don't have a General Certificate of Conformity for the product (which requires being able to track an item back even to the 'batch' in which it was made among many other things) to prove that it was tested to the NEW, EVEN LOWER standard of 600 ppm ANYTHING for a child 12 years of age or under is going to be classified as a 'banned hazardous substance' under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.

To do that and then ask we resale professional or a charitable nonprofit to get involved in trying to 'give away' a 'banned hazardous product'? Not going to happen.

Here's the kicker. When the new law was signed into effect all the BIG retailers took immediate steps to voluntarily ensure that the lead limits going into effect would meet the new lower standard (it is scheduled to end up as close to zero as they can get it in step-downs)and requiring their suppliers to provide them with the General Certificates of Conformity way early. BUT, the LABELING provision of the new law, does not go into effect until August of this year.

So, although most of the products out there are ALREADY meeting the standard, in the secondhand market there is no way for us to tell. (The professionals in our field have always screened for recalls.)

We think, as do most Americans if you read the growing groundswell of protests in the cybersphere, that it is crazy that overnight, something becomes 'hazardous'.

NO one, most manufacturers nor the second hand community, read the law as meaning SOLD after the date but MANUFACTURED after that date. The surprise ruling by the CPSC General Counsel late November was a stunner for many industries.

The redudant testing (by individual component, and by batch) is insane and excessively expensive - which is what is affecting the handmade clothing and organic toy makers - many work at home moms.

Where was the educational outreach to American business about this - where was the attempt to inform and advise of the potential impacts? Where was the effort made to avert the economic and environmental catastrophes that lie immediately around the corner.

I love Trent's blog post on http://www.the simpledollar.com (although a few of his facts are screwy - but then its a poorly crafted, confusing piece of legislation that is also missing lots specificity in other areas).

Anyway, the title of his post was, 'Hand-Me-Down Clothes in a Post Hand-Me-Down Era: Consumer Protectionism Gone Too Far?
Precisely.

Funny thing is - the overwhelming majority of people that are taking the time to speak out about this issue, many, many of them crunchy moms: guess what? They think this is stupid.Yet another case of legislating away the right of Americans to free choice.

Thanks Elaine for posting about this. One of the responders actually gave a helpful idea of providing a media visual. What about The Boston Tea Party of 2009?

Though, David Lee, haha - is louder and might draw lots more attention!

Paul- That would not work for a couple of reasons. Effective Feb10, if you don't have a General Certificate of Conformity for the product (which requires being able to track an item back even to the 'batch' in which it was made among many other things) to prove that it was tested to the NEW, EVEN LOWER standard of 600 ppm ANYTHING for a child 12 years of age or under is going to be classified as a 'banned hazardous substance' under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.

To do that and then ask we resale professional or a charitable nonprofit to get involved in trying to 'give away' a 'banned hazardous product'? Not going to happen.

Here's the kicker. When the new law was signed into effect all the BIG retailers took immediate steps to voluntarily ensure that the lead limits going into effect would meet the new lower standard (it is scheduled to end up as close to zero as they can get it in step-downs)and requiring their suppliers to provide them with the General Certificates of Conformity way early. BUT, the LABELING provision of the new law, does not go into effect until August of this year.

So, although most of the products out there are ALREADY meeting the standard, in the secondhand market there is no way for us to tell. (The professionals in our field have always screened for recalls.)

We think, as do most Americans if you read the growing groundswell of protests in the cybersphere, that it is crazy that overnight, something becomes 'hazardous'.

NO one, most manufacturers nor the second hand community, read the law as meaning SOLD after the date but MANUFACTURED after that date. The surprise ruling by the CPSC General Counsel late November was a stunner for many industries.

The redudant testing (by individual component, and by batch) is insane and excessively expensive - which is what is affecting the handmade clothing and organic toy makers - many work at home moms.

Where was the educational outreach to American business about this - where was the attempt to inform and advise of the potential impacts? Where was the effort made to avert the economic and environmental catastrophes that lie immediately around the corner.

I love Trent's blog post on http://www.the simpledollar.com (although a few of his facts are screwy - but then its a poorly crafted, confusing piece of legislation that is also missing lots specificity in other areas).

Anyway, the title of his post was, 'Hand-Me-Down Clothes in a Post Hand-Me-Down Era: Consumer Protectionism Gone Too Far?
Precisely.

Funny thing is - the overwhelming majority of people that are taking the time to speak out about this issue, many, many of them crunchy moms: guess what? They think this is stupid.Yet another case of legislating away the right of Americans to free choice.

Thanks Elaine for posting about this. One of the responders actually gave a helpful idea of providing a media visual. What about The Boston Tea Party of 2009?

Though, David Lee, haha - is louder and might draw lots more attention!

Thanks for weighing in Tonya and Ryan. I'm glad that Cynthia was able to connect with you here, as she brought the issue to my attention.

I feel badly for all the nonprofit thrift shops, mom 'n pop resale stores, and the crafting artists who make and sell their wares at flea markets and craft shows. This legislation just shut them down in a flash, not to mention the families that can no longer get gently used clothing for their kids. A good protectionist concept gone awry.

According to a FAQ on CPSC website "Thus, the Commission staff believes that the tracking label requirement applies to children’s products manufactured on or after August 14, 2009." My interpretation is that it clearly does nto affect items manufactured prior to this date and therefore all used itmes shoudl be fine - am I missing something?

Thank you for calling attention to this wrongheaded development--a classic case of government leaping into action before looking. At the garage-sale level, this new law is surely unenforceable, although that's clearly the least of its problems. I'm writing from Canada and fervently hope this kind of legislation won't cross the border.

Can anyone say "BLACK MARKET". Oh yea more opportunity!

Can anyone say "BLACK MARKET". Oh yea more opportunity!

Thanks for the additional comments. Vicki, I'm not an expert in this matter, but here's what the LA Times said in its article:

"Clothing and thrift trade groups say the law is flawed because it went through Congress too quickly. By deeming that any product not tested for lead content by Feb. 10 be considered hazardous waste, they contend, stores will have to tell customers that clothing they were allowed to sell Feb. 9 became banned overnight."

Rona, I know you! I moved to the US from Toronto and have read your work in Chatelaine. Wasn't your mother a writer, too?

Hi Vicki,

Too many jokes to make about government information...

On the "About CPSIA" page
http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/cpsia.html

Go to the "General Counsel Advisory Opinions". In particular, you'll want the first and last PDF documents, written by CPSC General Counsel Cheryl Falvey between Sept and Nov. 08 to see how and where the ruckus started in the interpretation.

There's some disparity also when you dig further between the lead and phthalate requirements, which would likely demonstrate that even larger business interests didn't have a chance to give their input during the agency guidance of this thing-- at public hearings or private meetings. Many openings for fixing the holes in this present themselves to the affected interests with a little digging...

I was wondering if this law forbids people from freecycling their clothes. There is a Yahoo group for almost every town where people can give away things they no longer want. The group has a moderator who sends out daily updates and you email the person to let them know you want their stuff and arrange a pick-up of the item(s). I use this service quite a bit. You can either seek or offer things you want/don't want and it's all free- that's the rule. Or could people host swap meets for parents to exchange their items? As long as we are not selling the clothes I don't see why we can't trade them among each other. At least they aren't sitting in a landfill and we are still getting more wear out of perfectly good clothes and saving people money. What do you think? Thanks!

Sharman, I'm not an attorney, but I would think that in extreme cases there could be some liability if a child gets sick. In reality, how can the government posssibly enforce this legislation in this circumstance?

This will have effects on Toy Train shows that sell vintage electric trains. This will also effects other such shows. People will not be able to sell vintage toys, no more classic erector sets. No more vintage lincoln logs, wind up toys, etc.

Our daughter's used toys and clothing are useless. Only good for the landfill. Thanks to the United States Government, we will be filling up our landfills much faster now. Unless of course they mandate we implement some sort of paid recycling for these now hazardous materials.

Image a person having a several thousand dollar toy train or match box car set. Guess what... it can no longer legally be sold.

Thanks for making everything kid related item that was made before Feb, 10, 2009 a pile of garbage.

Hmm, Kenton Toys are probably not lead free. Wonder if someone will be willing to pay the fee to have them tested for lead and certified before sale? Na, who is going to pay $4000 for a toy certificate for each toy on the shelf. I just bought my daughter 10 toy cars. I don't see a lead certificate on them. I am not going to pay the US government $4000/car to have them tested.

No more wooden toys either. Well, not from those mom and pop shops that make their own toys.

Heck, a simple wooden top will have to be tested and certified. I could make these in my garage, but nope, not worth the money to get them certified. You know, they have that metal tip on them. Gotta check that for lead.

I think you have to balance the risk vs. the reward. There may be issues with lead exposure (as there are with Pthalates (sp.?) in toys manufactured in China only for the U.S. market--Pthalates are banned in EU countries), but this doesn't outweigh the financial and practical benefits afforded to poor families who need to clothe their children. Moreover, the environmental benefits of re-using existing clothing vs. manufacturing new clothes could be tremendous.

We have to see the great fallacy of these lobby-driven regulations--if the government is so concerned about protecting children, there are many more impactful things it can do to prevent harm to children in areas where there are not nearly the corollary benefits provided by trading/sale of used clothing.

As has been mentioned by others, perhaps a bartering system mediated by an exchange like Craigslist might make sense.

I read the Act and it does not mention or reference Clothes or Clothing anywhere-- it does mention "products"-- i would interpret products and clothes differently. has anyone else read the ACT?

This is the biggest crock of crap I've seen in awhile.
So what do we as consignment shop owners do now? Do we immediately stop taking childrens clothing...or do we wait for the government to open its eyes? How would we know if the product was manufactured after Feb 10, if they were to change the law anyway? Is clothing going to require a manufacture date now? We are all in limbo like a prisoner on death row, just waiting for a stay of execution!!!!!

Take a big breath and read:

http://kidsconsignmentsales.com/cpsia.htm

"Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards."

Folks, give a big sigh of relief and go back to tagging your stuff for your next sale!

here is the law as it was written.

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html

Thoses of us who are "NOT IN CONGRESS" & MAKE THE MONEY THEY DO... can't afford to always buy something new..it's a very STUPID law....if they are so worried about the parts that contain lead the make the manufacture's be responsible & not put this on clothing!!! that would clear up the problem....( DON'T YOU THINK) don't punish us, for something out of our control..

MA Gomulinski...it also states;

"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."

So, you can resell the stuff BUT if it exceeds limits, you are then held accountable and could face penalties. In this sue crazy world, I don't know if I'd be willing to take that risk.

Before I go further, I want to comment on some of the frustration I am seeing here from many of you. No system is perfect, and this legislation was intended to protect American children from a potentially dangerous poison. There's nothing wrong with that. It shows that our government is attempting to act responsibly on our behalf.

What we do need, is some clarification and a legal interpretation of this legislation. I read the update that dakota provided, and one would assume that she is correct, however, the next sentence after the one that MA gives us (above) adds wording that can be ambiguous.

"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."

So, let's get this straight. If a child's sweater has buttons, and a consignment store or nonprofit thrift shop is unsure whether the buttons are made with lead, where does this legislation leave them? I think we need some answers, so I am going to contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission for an answer. If I don't get back to you with their response before my blog post expires, I'll try to post again with an update.

OK, just got off the phone with someone at the CPSC. He isn't in public affairs (I left a message for them), but he did help clarify things for me "unofficially."

Those outlets that sell children's products do not have to close. However, they are responsible for the items they sell. The legislation is intended to raise public awareness about potentially dangerous kids' products. Therefore, if a store is unsure about a specific product and whether it has lead content, it should refrain from selling it.

It's up to the stores to decide what to do about their inventories. No one is going to show up at their locations to watch them. However, if a consumer makes a used children's product purchase and a child gets sick, the parents/guardians can file a complaint with the CPSC and it will get investigated.

My contact could not answer how first-time violators will be dealt with, but it does present a valid liability issue.

I hope this is helpful. If I hear back from the CPSA public affairs staff, I'll post again.

Thanks for your comments and expressions of concern.

Wow, I had no idea about any of this. I live in a tiny little town of about 3500 people and know a lady who has a kids' clothing consignment shop called "Pipsqueak Boutique." I wonder if she even knows about this at all. Thanks for this.

Reselling Kids' Clothes is Unlawful as of Feb. 10

You got me! What a misleading headline! Ridiculous! The author should be ashamed for not performing due diligence.
check out the gov site -- http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html

As of this post I have unsubscribed to Marketing Profs! You should too!

Given the LAT piece dates to 2 Jan, Elaine's piece dates back to 6 Jan; and with so much discussion before and during-- this 8 Jan clarification appears awful "timely" and "responsive". Wondering if it wouldn't appear without public attention-- or the necessity if more thought, input, or attention were devoted at the beginning.

So now word's out: certification and testing standards don't apply to resellers, while liability sits on their shelves for anything moving forward.

The attention seemed to highlight another moving target: regulating safety in terms of reactions to specific harms versus identifying the harms more broadly using a greater range of input to reduce/eliminate those causes altogether.

Even more reason more input from everyone with a stake in all this now, should engage in the rulemaking and guidance on those other standards?...

Hi. Iam a consignment shop for maternity through childhood located in mainland China, and I think it is a bit too extreme. The owner of such a shop anywhere can reject clothing or toy items which seem unfit (ie. have charms and applique, etc), thus preventing the public from purchasing. Also, it is wise for second hand shop/consignment shop owners to sign up to receive auto notifications of items which have been recalled for lead or strangulation problems, as this is part of the due diligence of any second hand/consignment shop owner's responsibility. This will have a huge impact not on the families who buy second hand duds, but also on business owners.