Wow. I was having a hard time understanding how legislation of this sort could get as far from its intended goal as the CPSIA has. Thanks to this seven minute interview with Julie Vallese, formerly of the Consumer Protection Safety Commission (she left as of Jan 15th) by KBAL TV in Baltimore, I now understand. The real problem is apparently the media and “mommy blogs” who don’t understand the legislation (emphasis mine):

“When it comes to resellers, there is not a requirement for them to test. There is a lot of misinformation being floated out by the media, by the mommy blogs, by others blogging on legislation that they’re just not understanding, and it needs to be clear, and it needs to be concise, in terms of their requirements under the law.”

So Ms. Vallese clarified it for resellers:

“What second-hand shops need to do and understand in terms of their responsibility is, they do need to meet the law, the law does apply to them. How they meet that law, is not defined in the legislation.”

“There is a lead level limit of 600 ppm total lead that needs to be met. How a shop owner comes to their level of confidence is not defined in the legislation. They simply need to make a business decision, at a level of confidence, that the products they are selling meets the law.”

How did Ms. Vallese suggest they do this?

“They can look at it, and make an informed decision on whether or not that product meets the law, they could call the manufacturer of that product and ask them whether or not there was any lead used in the manufacturing of that product. Or they could test.”

“What consignment shop and thrift store owners should do, is use their best judgment on how they reach that level of confidence that they’re meeting the law.”

To further make her point, Ms. Vallese noted that the CPSC only has about 100 field investigators, and: “The agency will be putting those resources to use in places that we can address the greatest risk and those products that will cause the most harm.”

My take? The CPSC is encouraging resellers to take their chances with liability by “using their best judgment” because they are unlikely to be prosecuted. Hmmm… that sounds exactly like what we’ve been reporting. Thank you Ms. Vallese, for clarifying that the CPSIA really is as corrupt as we feared. My best judgment tells me not to accept a wink and a nod as a binding legal agreement from the CPSC or anyone else. Maybe it works in politics, but do they seriously expect businesses and non-profits to risk violations and penalties when livelihoods are at stake?