Home

Blog

How People Voted

26% For, 74% Against
68 votes cast

P.L. 110-314, The Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act (3 comments ↓ | 18 wiki edits: view article ↓)

  • This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

H.R. 4040 would establish consumer product safety standards and other safety requirements for children's products and to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

(read more ↓)


Cost per :

Learn More

From the Blog

Get the Lead Back In!

Lead in children’s toys was a big story last year, and it might have caused Congress or regulators to go overboard in an anti-lead crusade. Because now Congress is considering a bill to relax the anti-lead standards for “secondary sales, r...

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Jim Prall

December 11, 2007, 1:37pm (report abuse)

A major shortcoming is omission of "whistle-blower" protection for workers making consumer products. Refer to H.R. 1585 for a better case where we're including this crucial protection to allow the truth to emerge and protect workers who do the right thing.

Citizen II

June 11, 2008, 12:03pm (report abuse)

I agree that something must be done but the approach seems unduly bureaucratic, e.g., the database sounds like it is with good intentions, but perhaps a bit naïve. Chasing down and legitimizing the complaints of grieving parents may turn-out to be a drain on very limited resources. According to Accenture, there 100,000 low-cost-country suppliers (LCCS) of items that many would classify as toys and the industry is worth about $80bln per annum. 80-percent of all of these imports are from China. I think our country should focus efforts on qualifying sourcing agents who understand LCCS markets and require they manage the risk. This will drive up the cost of toys, however, the total cost to Americans may be lower and the risk more manageable. Oh-why aren’t we protecting children from LCCS countries as a part of this process? One final point, I think a $10Mln cap on penalties is too low. This is an insignificant amount for some of the retailers involved in distribution.

Eric H

December 6, 2008, 9:47pm (report abuse)

This should have been called the National Bankruptcy Act. It does not target Chinese exporters, it targets manufacturers, foreign and domestic. Most apparel companies in the US (~68%) are smaller than 20 employees, many of them 1-2 person shops. They're done. School suppliers, especially for special needs kids (blind, deaf, etc.)? Done. Some of the deadlines have already passed, but it will take years to build an accredited testing facility.

By the definition in this law, a television set is a children's product. You know how much lead is in one of those? The CPSC ruled that stuff that was already manufactured but has not yet been sold (or even made it to the store) is subject to testing. Nobody wants that hot potato. This puts a nail in the coffin of domestic manufacture of children's apparel and toys.

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)