[ExI] they're everywhere
kanzure at gmail.com
Mon Jan 19 00:14:12 UTC 2009
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Kevin H <kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/09, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Sorry guy, but all of your appeals to emotion really causes me to
>>> distrust your message. Could you explain, again please, why is it that
>>> small businesses shouldn't have to meet safety standards?
>> There is a clear disconnect between the sweeping nature of this law, and
>> the narrow range of products that were problematic in 2007. The CPSIA
>> applies standards that were put in place in reaction to the sale of toys
>> contaminated with lead paint and toxic plastics. Rather than focus on these
>> materials, this law places a guilty until proven innocent mentality on all
>> children's product producers by imposing mandatory testing and
>> certification, and in the process will kill an entire industry.
> So, small businesses shouldn't have to meet safety standards because they
> might go out of business? You might have thought it cute to just copy/paste
> your post like this, but it doesn't help that it doesn't answer the
I don't see where this says anything about small businesses not having
to meet safety standards. This article is talking about the high costs
of the standards testing, which is oriented more towards high volume,
high money businesses.
1 512 203 0507
More information about the extropy-chat