Good piece, Xin. You know, it just seems to me like if international companies want their goods sold here, why shouldn't the cost of the testing or quality control go there first? That way stores would have a list of products they would be able to carry with confidence. I realize that's not the way it worked out, but it just seems like it's something the legislation would have taken into account. I wonder if there's any history on that issue, and how it got addressed during the legislative process.

The CPSC is working on clarification for people like crafters who make things for sale. Etsy is working with them to get some sort of clear rules to exempt crafters who make small numbers or one of something. There is more info on Etsy's home page.

In reality most crafters source their materials from large national retailers unless they are sourcing something like raw wool and spinning it or buying domestic handspun wool from another small business or crafter. So CPSC should be able to establish something that requires things like yardage material or yarns to be tested before coming into the country. Possibly something like a label showing the item is kid safe or not kid safe.

Why not start with the wholesalers? Why should retailers get stuck with bad goods in the first place? If it's a matter of compliance make it a standard pracice to test stuff at the docks, charged to the manufacturer and sent back at their expense. That way it's more costly to produce bad stuff than good. It seems it's always easier to nip things in the bud instead of waiting for seeds to be blown around and start to root.

Oh, and it pronounced "fie-lates".

oh, it is actually pronounced "thal-ates." the "ph" is silent.

It would be nice if the politicians would actually think about the people that elected them, before jumping the gun and passing laws that haven't been thought through. Yes, the phthalates should, and need, to be controlled better than we have bothered to do before. But, there are so many items that don't have phthalates in them. A blanket law like this only causes confusion, not peace of mind. Not to mention that, more than likely, there's very little likelihood that a law like this would even be possible to enforce. Law enforcement officers would have to comb every garage sale, craft fair, children's internet toy sales site, and grandmother's craft bag in the country. I really have to wonder what our government was thinking when they came up with this. Protecting children is of course a good cause, but not when the consequences haven't actually been thought out, and it hurts nearly everyone who sells used toys and clothing, or makes children's crafts. Are they forcing children's book producers to test the trees that their paper pages are made from?
What's next? They decide not to arrest drunk drivers, but take away everyone's car? They decide they're not going to arrest anymore drug dealers, so they they take away everyone's medications? Careful; if they notice someone littering, then instead of fining the litter-bug, they might just decide to take away your garbage pails :-O
Why don't they go after the people responsible for allowing the contaminants and toxins in the toys, and leave everyone else alone?

Great subject Xin! I agree it's hard to see the logic in these legal requirements being set on the retailers and not the manufacturers. I would think that regulating the products at the source and prohibiting sales or import of unsafe products would make more sense. Then again, I see the point that some retailers can and would get their hands on cheaper goods and maybe knockoffs that find their way into the market and those unscrupulous business owners should be punished.

My first time on these forums and there are some great writers here and some original subjects! I'm always hoping to find some talented writers or even those working to improve and perfect their writing style!