another business hurt by law...

[acroyear]

Steve Jackson Games Daily Illuminator - October 7, 2009:

Are your games safe? We thought they were, but back in 2007 there were a series of product recalls that led the U.S. government to give us a new law (Public Law No: 110-314), commonly known as the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. The CPSIA is a source of personal stress for me at the moment because I'm dealing with trying to cover safety testing costs without increasing the MSRP on our games. And these costs aren't minor; for a game like Munchkin Quest we're looking at somewhere around $3,000 to $4,000 for the CPSIA testing. That's a significant increase in our production costs, and is a lot for us to absorb, but for the moment we're going to try to cover these costs without passing the increase on to the players.

At least they can afford it, but only by having their big successes (Munchkin) pay for the ones that might run at a loss. A much smaller company, in business to make games, not to make millions (not that SJ's a millionaire by any stretch) might not have those resources.

Comments

[uncle-possum.livejournal.com]

But, in the rule making process, there have been some evidences of some rationality. Some of the rules have been modified--e.g. apparently they have given up on objecting to the roller and ball bearings in kids' bikes having too much pthalates and lead.

The big one (for me at least) was the original rule that said all books aimed at children had to be removed or tested for lead. Since lead used to be used in printer's ink, that meant, in effect, that all historical library children's book collections were going to be trashed unless they were tested. And, the testing was also going to be required of more recent books as well. That rule has been dropped. But retailers are still likely to be fined (or maybe jailed) if they have stuff aimed at kids and can't either test themselves or have evidence that the manufacturer has tested them. At least, for books, the testing is for the ink, not for the individual books.

Im the meantime, farm workers still get sprayed with insecticides, plastic bottles leach poisons into their contents, and like that. Sigh!!!

[eiredrake.livejournal.com]

Im the meantime, farm workers still get sprayed with insecticides, plastic bottles leach poisons into their contents, and like that. Sigh!!!

Which is why we need laws to prevent that and strict enforcement of said laws against violators. I shouldn't have to die because some douche CEO decides to send out peanut butter he knows is tainted because its' 'too expensive'.

[eiredrake.livejournal.com]

Sorry dude... for every business whining about stuff like that you have a hundred businesses that wouldn't even exist were it not for law. Not to mention the dramatic improvements in products because of the law. One need only watch the video of the 2010 Chevvy Malibu vs 1950 Chevvy that's been going around.

The problem is when laws aren't evenly enforced or are overzealous in their application not that there are laws at all. I mean, there's only so much a freakin card game is gonna do, but what if they're ordering printing ink from China that contains DMSO and arsenic or something? I'll take my spinach without e.coli, my car with 50 years of forced safety improvements, my airplane with FAA and TSA regulations and my furniture without toxic residue any day and if it costs businesses a bit more then so be it. I'd rather not have to die for someone else's profit margin.

[eiredrake.livejournal.com]

That should be "sorry dude, I don't agree." for some reason I can't seem to edit responses anymore.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

or are overzealous in their application

It is this that is the key problem with this "toys" thing, as it forces antique dealers to throw out their stock (stuff worth hundreds or thousands of dollars otherwise to the true collector) merely because it couldn't be tested as was once originally "for kids" (yeah, a hundred years ago). it causes individual hand-made craft vendors out of business because with everything they make as "one-of-a-kind", a $100 hand-made doll costs the maker $3000 just to get it tested.

And as for aren't evenly enforced?

you can bet a cool million right now that in less than a year's time, we'll hear about some loophole that got a whole bunch of lead-tainted stuff from China into this country and on the shelves in spite of it all.

Then there's the whole crap about "for children"? SJ Games's stuff is meant for kids over the age of 11. I seriously doubt their target audience/market ever have any intention of eating the product.

[eiredrake.livejournal.com]

But a one of a kind $100 hand made doll could cost a hell of a lot more in wrongful death suits if someone ends up dying as a result of what the doll is made from. The whole idea of this law is to prevent consumers from being hurt, killed and maimed because of people trying to get rich quick using poison.

, we'll hear about some loophole that got a whole bunch of lead-tainted stuff from China into this country and on the shelves in spite of it all.

Of course, and that's part of the problem of enforcement. Be it toothpaste or dog food or whatever. I don't want to put on an etsy made necklace and find out it was made with recycled smoked glass....that old type that was both leaded and contained trace amounts of uranium because it was 'neat'. Though personally I think we're in more danger from big corporations rather than Etsy, the prohibition on bills of attainder prevent laws from being passed (Unless of course you're ACORN) that effect only one group without being applied to everyone. So you can't stop LeadToysCorp without also subjecting SJ to the same law.

Then there's the whole crap about "for children"? SJ Games's stuff is meant for kids over the age of 11. I seriously doubt their target audience/market ever have any intention of eating the product.

Well then the law needs revision but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law.

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

Actually, there are laws that differentiate corporations based on number of employees or annual gross income. Just as I am fairly sure that the local private airports that offer flying lessons don't have everyone there subjected to TSA screening.

There are jurisdictions requiring restaurants to provide nutritional information if they are part of a chain (I think it is phrased as number of outlets of that restaurant).

If a toy is made by hand using 'approved' things (e.g. taking several different fabrics that are cleared for use around small children and acceptable stuffing and making crazy-quilt teddybears) why should they be subject to $3000 worth of testing.

Wouldn't it be simpler to ban/fine people who import 'unsafe' paint, fabric, etc..

As for the wrongful death suit, that is only going to occur if a child gets killed by the toy. If the toys are small runs the chances of a child doing a Darwin are fairly small (and face it; kids are like horses ... looking for a way to hurt themselves) and if the manufacturer is doing a good job of making sure they use safe components it should not be a problem.

All this is likely to do is put more small manufacturers (and specialty stores) out of business and create a huge profit margin for the testing centers (until a child dies from a 'safe' toy and the testers are sued for passing it as safe). But the manufacturer will probably be jointly sued and the jury will find against the manufacturer since they aren't the ones trying to protect the children; they are the ones who killed the child (completely independent of whether or not the cause of death had anything to do with 'dangerous manufacturing processes').

[eiredrake.livejournal.com]

and if the manufacturer is doing a good job of making sure they use safe components it should not be a problem.

That's the problem though. If manufacturers were taking appropriate steps to comply with the law and the people who don't were actually punished, peanut butter wouldn't have killed people (to give a recent example). Toys are no different.

Like I said the law needs revision. So does the large portion of the US Legal code. But while less laws may make companies more money they do not make people more safe and killing off your customers isn't a good idea.

As far as small manufacturers such as people on Etsy, how can they really sure that X component they're using wasn't treated with Y chemical? You can make the assumption that your supplier is telling you the truth - but your customer has only you to rely upon (and lets face it few people are going to go delving into the origin of every ingredient, plant die, component, staple and stitch in a product) and if you're being fed false information then it's going to be the consumer that ends up being hurt by it which would ultimately cost you the business anyway. Other than massive insurance companies and tobacco firms most customers don't like it when their kid (or themselves) ends up dead, poisoned or otherwise hurt because of the goods they buy. They expect the stuff that they buy to be as safe as it can possibly be and that doesn't happen without laws enforcing it. Why? Because the rich wealth corporations can use money to spread rumors, challenge science, launch propaganda campaigns and engage in SLAPP and other lawsuits on the little guy to prevent news of the product defect from spreading. Meanwhile bodies stack up.

I do have to say that $3000 worth of testing does seem a bit high for smaller makers but ultimately universal enforcement of sane sensible laws is better for society as a whole. Unfortunately the effort in getting there takes a while since we have so damned many lobbyists.