Making kids safer, one question at a time.  Welcome to the Car-Seat.Org community!   Motor Vehicle Crashes are the #1 cause of fatal injury for children and adults, age groups 1 to 34.   Selecting a safe car, minivan or SUV, plus correctly using child restraints and seatbelts may be the most important things you can do to protect your family.   Need help installing an infant, convertible or booster seat?   Looking for carseat reviews or compatibility advice? Need help buying the best and safest car seats for your baby, toddler or older kid?   No question is a bad one, so please click here to ask our experts a question and then join our friendly community of moms, dads, caregivers and advocates in the USA and Canada.   Thank you for visiting; buckle-up and drive safely!


Sponsored Ads

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 41 of 41
  1. #41
    CPS Technician Shanora's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Edmonton AB, Canada

    Re: Baby Carrier Industry Alliance - Attention all Babywearers!

    For those wondering, Vesta (One of the Chairwomen on the BCIA) posted this on TBW (The Babywearer)

    It's fantastic news. The CPSC told the company last week that they wanted to release the recall this past week, and asked the company for a day and time that the CPSC could send someone to watch the company destroy all of the recalled products. Obviously, that didn't happen. Why? We're not sure. Since this has turned into a hostile recall (the official name is "unilateral", versus "voluntary"), the CPSC has no obligation or desire to communicate with the company about the minutiae of what's going on.

    Our speculation? In order for a recall to be released to the press, a majority of the CPSC commissioners must sign off on it. We suspect that this hasn't happened yet. Compliance has made a habit of lying to the company during this entire episode. We think that they were sure that they could just slide this release across the commissioners' desks and move forward this week. What we hope happened is that the increased pressure from all of your emails and phone calls, combined with the inquiries of approximately three senators has slowed the process down. What we really hope happens next is that the commissioners get a peek at the shenanigans that Compliance has been pulling and put the kibosh on this recall - and the others like it in the pipeline.

    So. Thank you. From the bottom of our hearts. We wouldn't be where we are today if Crystal hadn't spoken up and you hadn't responded with action. Here's to a silent week next week, too.
    She also posted this
    OK, this is going to be a stupidly long post, so I hope it goes through. I'm also going to be walking a fine line, so it's going to take me forever to write. I hope by the end of it, everyone will get a peek into our fears.

    I am going to address comments in order. Sorry if it seems disjointed.

    <breathing deep>

    First, I did not mean to be snarky, exactly, AF. But I admit that I was a little exasperated and was reacting to what I perceived as some snarkiness in the OP. I apologize, and will spend more of my meditation time on peaceful words. Really.

    This statement bothers me. Sharing the name of the company isn't going to make the recall happen anymore that it will keep it from happening.
    This is not up to you or me. If you asked me not to tell someone something, I wouldn't. That's that. I promise.

    Because the CPSC has NOT followed their own protocols. They've provided no scientific evidence of the dangers of the sling. If a sling is unsafe, of course it should be recalled and BCIA would no doubt lead the charge - but that recall MUST be supported by evidence (like M'Liss's work on the bag sling dangers). Otherwise, what's to stop CPSC from recalling any sling or any other child product willy nilly with no evidence that the product is faulty.

    Recalls have to be evidence based or they are simply witch hunts and fear mongering.
    When we walked out of the very first ASTM meeting to start working on the voluntary standards almost three years ago, I turned to my colleagues and said, "They want us gone". It's true. They (I'm speaking of the CPSC, mostly) want products that can be standardized, leveled, engineered, and (as Darien says) made fool-proof without removing the fool. The problem is that our products are safe. Even with all of the incidents that have occurred, our products are statistically safer than most baby products on the market, regardless of causality. If you take probable causation into account, I don't think there is a safer product on the market. Maybe cotton balls. But you could choke on those, perhaps?

    We just want CPSC to follow due process. The problem for them is that if they followed due process, they couldn't make this recall happen. And they know it. So they have decided that the only way to get it done is to bully the company. It obviously worked on Sprout Stuff. None of us have enough money to truly fight these guys in court. And that's what the CPSC kept telling this company. If you don't recall, we will take you to court. But they can't. Because, again, they don't have any evidence to support their demand. It's stunning, really, when you start peeling back the layers.

    Consumer Reports last issue that talked about baby carrier made it clear they saw no reason why anyone would ever want to use a sling.
    This is the position that Don Mays, from Consumers Union, is taking. He sees no reason why we shouldn't all be happy with front packs and frame packs. That means no kangaroo care, unless you make your own carrier. That means no manufacture of traditional styles of carriers. No pouches, slings, wraps, mei tais, or podaegi. But that's OK, right? We have enough choice in the market with Baby Bjorns and Keltys.

    As I understand it, the BCIA is not making any sort of formal or informal statements. The info in the original post is from TBW, not BCIA, correct?
    This is correct. However, the work that you all have been doing is affecting the work that we are doing. We are feeling the effects of your help. And we are utterly grateful, as is the company involved. We had taken this fight as far as we could by ourselves, and then Crystal rallied the troops and we are so much further today than this time last week.

    Also, without naming names, does anyone know why this specific company is being targeted? Are there other companies being targeted that are earlier in the process with the CPSC?
    The statute of limitations for the CPSC taking action on an incident is five years. So they started with the oldest incident, within that five year span, and are working toward the most recent. And yes. There are other companies clearly being lined up behind this one. They have retained legal counsel, and are fighting hard not to get as far along in the process as the first company. The problem is that the first company had no warning. Every other company after this will know damn well not to make the mistake of being too earnest in their dealings with the CPSC. We just don't want to lose one good company while we learn to be tougher.

    And maybe that means that some of my non-BWing friends don't get involved.
    Absolutely. We are a large enough group that I think we can do what needs to be done at this point.

    **this is from twitter** we truly respect everyone who supports #babywearing; our investigations are focused on slings in which babies have died #childsafety
    Msg to #babywearing community: We @ CPSC are not trying to ban or stop use of all slings. Whoever says we are is providing misleading info
    Well I'm glad I waited before jumping on the bandwagon. Its always good to hear both sides of the story!
    Wow. I know that we all want to trust the government. But there are at least three problems with taking Scott Wolfson's tweet as reality.

    1) It is entirely possible that Scott Wolfson has no idea what the compliance department is doing and saying. We have good reason to believe that Compliance has been doing and saying things that would horrify some of the other departments, like Public Affairs and Human Factors.

    2) We have in writing that the CPSC is considering action against the entire class of products (By which I take it that they mean "hammock" slings, like pouches and ring slings, but it's hard to know for sure. They could mean any baby carrier not covered by the current standards for front and back packs).

    3) One of us has been told, in a phone conversation with Compliance, that the CPSC's intention is to recall each product in which there has been an incident (regardless of causality), and then to recall all other products that are essentially the same design (so if a pouch is recalled, go after pouches; if a ring sling is recalled, go after ring slings). In that same conversation, they said that if the baby's head could possibly fall below the "rim" of the carrier (their word, I'd never thought of it like that), they want it off the market.

    At this point, I'd like to pause and explain something else that Compliance has said in these dealings. They will not ban car seats or cribs or knives or child-size ATVs or any other product that could be used improperly. In their minds, the difference is that slings are not necessary products. Stop reading right there and think about that statement. The CPSC is now the arbiter of what you do and don't "need" to buy while parenting your children. They also don't think you "need" to co-sleep. They don't think you "need" organic crib mattresses. I'm so glad they're looking out for me.

    [quotw]they might start recalling parents soon.
    Oh, you have no idea how close you are to the truth there. The safest baby is the baby that is not subject to the mistakes of a caregiver. If baby is carried in a plastic bucket and left to sleep alone in a crib, for example, they are (in the view of the CPSC) infinitely safer than if they have to rely on the good judgment of a caregiver. Unfortunately, sometimes this is true. But for the majority of parents, that is insulting.

    Perhaps I'm dense, but if the worst-case scenario does play out, does this mean that we couldn't import carriers, either?
    If the CPSC chose to "ban" slings and pouches (which honestly, is not likely - the most likely scenario is that they would implement a set of standards that could not be met by pouches and ring slings as we understand them), then no, you could not import those types of products legally. Like lead paint.

    I hope I haven't said anything that's going to get me in trouble, lol. And I hope that this helped a little. [/quote]

    These quotes were taken from this thread on TBW -!

    I hope this might explain a few things....

    Samantha - CRST
    ~* Mom To Joshua -16 years, Seat belt *~
    ~* Liam - 10 years, 55-60 Pounds, Graco booster (no back) *~
    ~* Cordelia Grace - 7 years, 41lbs, Diono Monterey *~

  2. # ADS
    Sponsored Ads
    Join Date
    April, 2001

Similar Threads

  1. Attention Baby Wearers!
    By skaterbabs in forum Baby Gear and Kids Stuff: Shopping and Deals
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-12-2007, 08:16 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-12-2002, 05:15 PM



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts