new toy and clothing laws are going to affect us all

[lighthouseacademy]

This is NOT a partisan issue. I am a mother of 3 small children I avoided Made in China toys last year, and continue to avoid them as much as possible. I love German toys and natural materials. I hope that by writing here this will not spiral into a political thread that gets closed or deleted, but that you might take a look at the financial implications of this law that has gone too far. I have only touched on the ramifications in the following, but it extends to declaring any toys not already certified on the shelves as Haz Mat and destroying them come February. Seems ridiculous and almost conspiritorial and a bit insane, I know, but it is true. Please read and write to your representatives. There are many representatives who are not listening yet, but there are also many who are listening.

 

This is very important to me. Last Christmas the US experienced a rash of high lead level toys imported from China. Congress rushed to create more stringent laws. These laws, while well meaning, are going to put small businesses out of business and limit our choices. What was created was The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. The way the law is written, any toy or clothing item or article intended for use by children under 12 will need to be lead and phthalate tested (clothing is exempt from phthalate testing). On the surface this seems to be a good idea. However, testing will be done in a destructive manner- meaning that for EVERY color and EVERY variation from every batch, all components are to be tested. The item will be taken apart to be tested. This means that if a company offers tshirts using cotton from the same source in 3 colors with either long sleeve or short sleeved options, the shirt will be tested 6 times- once per each combination of color and sleeve length. This is addition to the testing that is already done by many component manufacturers. It will not be enough to have a certification of testing of the fabric from the fabric source or other components from the raw material supplier, but requires the fabric and other materials to be tested again. Already several smaller European companies, who make fabulous high quality toys, are leaving the US market (http://www.playthings.com/article/CA6620437.html). Sellers on Etsy, Ebay, and other small shops are also effected. Small toy stores that generally carry the European toys are going to have a smaller stock selection or may not be able to continue operations. Furthermore resale toy and clothing stores will be effected because toys will be retroactively banned. Unfortunately, there is a lot of vagueness still in the law. If you call the CPSC to get more information, what is handed out is sometimes conflicting. As the mother of young children, I recognize it is important not to give our children poisonous substances, but this law has gone too far. However, the economic implications of this law are astronomical. Please take a moment to read a little about this or write your representatives and let them know that this law, while well-meaning, has gone too far and was not thoroughly thought out. Please stress the economic impact- this will be disasterous to far too many.

 

 

A few links to peruse:

Etsy is working to fight this http://www.etsy.com/storque/craftivism/handmade-childrens-items-unintended-consequences-consumer-pr-3056/

More information- and a lot of discussion on the issue at hand: http://www.fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=32

The second post here delineates some the financial implications due to the retroactive nature of this

http://www.fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3379

 

Also, CPSC is looking for public comment on component testing vs. finished product testing http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/ComponentPartsComments.pdf emails need to be submitted by 1/30/09 Sec102ComponentPartsTesting@cpsc.gov

 

Another site for more information is the FAQ provided by CPSC http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/faq/faq.html

[Highereducation]

I am more than willing to do some more reading on this issue and perhaps it will change my outlook.

 

But my gut reaction is that this legislation is a positive thing. Forcing manufacturers to account for and be completely responsible for what kinds of materials are being used in these toys and clothing is well-needed and long overdue.

[lighthouseacademy]

I am more than willing to do some more reading on this issue and perhaps it will change my outlook.

 

But my gut reaction is that this legislation is a positive thing. Forcing manufacturers to account for and be completely responsible for what kinds of materials are being used in these toys and clothing is well-needed and long overdue.

That has been everyone's gut reaction. For example, Mothering Magazine, when this was first passed issued a hurray in their magazine (which was published this month, although the hurray was written in September). They have now joined the fight. Their reason being that manufacturers like Haba, Selecta, and other natural material, earth friendly companies who are conscientious of what they are giving to children are leaving the US market and handcrafted items won't survive this. If you scroll through http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=1008155&highlight=cpsc (There is some slightly off topic comments too).

This is Peggy O'Mara's comment on the matter on page 3 of the comments:

Mothering Toy Article

I'm sorry that it looks like Mothering is not in support of small advertisers because of our praise for the CPSIA in the November/December issue. This is not the case. We copyedited Mindy's article in July, three months after the bill was passed, and printed the issue in early September. We were praising the action to ban lead and phthalates, but were not aware then of the impact of the law on small businesses. We have since been made aware of this by our advertisers and are putting up an action alert today about the oversight hearing Wednesday in Washington on the CPSIA. Pasted below is the info I researched on Friday for the action. It will be with the action alert on the site this afternoon. Please encourage everyone you know to contact their representatives, especially those representatives who sit on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection or to go to Washington. We want to do everything we can to change this bill or to have it rescinded so please email me directly about any action we should put on the site. This bill is the usual practice of appearing to look good for the consumer, while still supporting big business at the expense of our children. This law just makes it harder for the companies that are already doing the right thing to keep doing it. Please also check out the action at Moms Rising regarding the fact that the lead and phthalate tainted products are staying on the shelf until February. Thank you for letting me know your concerns.

 

 

Please contact your congressional representatives regarding the burden that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) places on small manufacturers. Below is a list of the committee members who will hold an oversight hearing entitled, “Implementation of the CPSIA: Urgent Questions about Application Dates, Testing and Certification, and Protecting Children†on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
(Ratio: 16-13)
 Bobby L. Rush (IL), Chairman

Jan Schakowsky, IL, Vice Chair Ed Whitfield, KY, Ranking Member*

G. K. Butterfield, NC Cliff Stearns, FL

John Barrow, GA Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, MS

Baron P. Hill, IN Vito Fossella, NY

Edward J. Markey, MA George Radanovich, CA

Rick Boucher, VA Joseph R. Pitts, PA

Edolphus Towns, NY Mary Bono Mack, CA

Diana DeGette, CO Lee Terry, NE

Charles A. Gonzalez, TX Sue Wilkins Myrick, NC

Mike Ross, AR John Sullivan, OK***

Darlene Hooley, OR Michael C. Burgess, TX

Anthony D. Weiner, NY Marsha Blackburn, TN

Jim Matheson, UT Joe Barton, TX (Ex Officio)

Charlie Melancon, LA

John D. Dingell (Ex Officio)

 

 

To contact your representatives, go to

 

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

 

To contact your senators, go to

 

http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

 

 

Ask Acting Chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Honorable Nancy Nord, to uphold the fairness of the CPSIA. She made the following statement on April 14, 2008

“The new product safety legislation signed into law today is a victory for parents and consumers. New regulatory authorities and enforcement tools, many of which I asked of Congress last year, will make it easier for CPSC to find and recall unsafe products made around the world. CPSC is ready to implement the law fully, fairly and in a way that bolsters the safety of children’s products and increases consumer confidence.â€

 

Contact her at the CPSC:

 

info@cpsc.gov

Phone: 301-504-7923

Fax: 301-504-0124

 

[shell in SC]

I'm a bit confused about something. You say that the items will have to be taken apart to be tested. Why is that? Why wouldn't it be tested at assembly and paperwork filed that it is compliant? The gov't doesn't test every food item that is produced for consumption after the fact. The tests are done during production under a USDA inspector and independent tests are done by the manufacturer as part of it's quality processes to ensure no contamination is present. I'm not sure why this would be done any differently? Are we sure we're not reading more into this?

[lighthouseacademy]

I'm not sure why this would be done any differently? Are we sure we're not reading more into this?

The testing will be done 3rd party and the items will be certified by a 3rd party after manufacture.

Every manufacturer (including an importer) or private labeler of a children’s product must have its product tested by an accredited independent testing lab and, based on the testing, must issue a certificate that the product meets all applicable CPSC requirements.

from http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/summaries/102brief.html

 

More info: http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/legislation.html

[Emmy]

I'm a bit confused about something. You say that the items will have to be taken apart to be tested. Why is that? Why wouldn't it be tested at assembly and paperwork filed that it is compliant? The gov't doesn't test every food item that is produced for consumption after the fact. The tests are done during production under a USDA inspector and independent tests are done by the manufacturer as part of it's quality processes to ensure no contamination is present. I'm not sure why this would be done any differently? Are we sure we're not reading more into this?

 

The testing itself destroys the product. I'm guessing that it isn't so much the cost of the one product in either color (or whatever variation) that is the deterrent as much as the cost and hassle of doing the testing in an on-going matter. Many manufacturers don't have official testing on-site so they would need to send the items out to an independent lab to be tested - and it's probably pretty expensive (think several hundred dollars per item to be tested for every manufacturing run). For a small handicraft kind of toy-maker or garment-maker it's completely cost prohibitive and simply not possible. For larger manufacturers it's an extra step and expense that will need to be weighed against the sales they do in the U.S.

 

I'm not really siding on either side of this issue - just thought I'd lend some information about how the testing works. Pre-kids I worked in the apparel industry and dealt with manufacturers doing testing on kids sleepwear and clothing.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Emmy

[shell in SC]

This whole issue (including food) with the US receiving hazardous products just leaves me shaking my head. . .DH works in the food industry, so that's where my "knowlege" is based. If we want to export food to other countries (and I'm thinking specifically of China in this case) we have to jump through SO.MANY.HOOPS, sometimes it's not even worth it to sell to them. Why is the US so lax on it's import guidelines? Now that we've allowed this to happen for so long we go to the exact opposite end of the spectrum and say EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE has to be tested. I don't understand why we can't adopt a slightly more aggressive stance instead of this "go in with guns blazing and shoot everyone" mentality.

 

I know you guys won't be able to provide answers. . .it's just my rant and observations of a broken society.

[shell in SC]

The testing itself destroys the product. I'm guessing that it isn't so much the cost of the one product in either color (or whatever variation) that is the deterrent as much as the cost and hassle of doing the testing in an on-going matter. Many manufacturers don't have official testing on-site so they would need to send the items out to an independent lab to be tested - and it's probably pretty expensive (think several hundred dollars per item to be tested for every manufacturing run). For a small handicraft kind of toy-maker or garment-maker it's completely cost prohibitive and simply not possible. For larger manufacturers it's an extra step and expense that will need to be weighed against the sales they do in the U.S.

 

I'm not really siding on either side of this issue - just thought I'd lend some information about how the testing works. Pre-kids I worked in the apparel industry and dealt with manufacturers doing testing on kids sleepwear and clothing.

 

 

So are you saying that until now we haven't tested these products at all for any type of compliance?

[lighthouseacademy]

The testing itself destroys the product. I'm guessing that it isn't so much the cost of the one product in either color (or whatever variation) that is the deterrent as much as the cost and hassle of doing the testing in an on-going matter. Many manufacturers don't have official testing on-site so they would need to send the items out to an independent lab to be tested - and it's probably pretty expensive (think several hundred dollars per item to be tested for every manufacturing run). For a small handicraft kind of toy-maker or garment-maker it's completely cost prohibitive and simply not possible. For larger manufacturers it's an extra step and expense that will need to be weighed against the sales they do in the U.S.

 

I'm not really siding on either side of this issue - just thought I'd lend some information about how the testing works. Pre-kids I worked in the apparel industry and dealt with manufacturers doing testing on kids sleepwear and clothing.

Yes, it will be cost prohibitive for small companies- the lead testing is not as bad, but the phthalate testing is more expensive. Testing could easily run 300-1200 per item per run. The quotes vary greatly across the internet because it depends on the company that is giving the quote for the testing and how many components. Furthermore, components that don't generally have lead or phthalates (for example metal snaps without coating aren't going to have phthalates because phthalates are only in plastics) will still have to be tested for that component. So, jeans that is made from 100% cotton with metal snaps and zipper and thread would need to be tested 4 times (each component). Further, if you use x brand snap and I use x brand snap, we will both need to test x brand snap (even x brand snap from the same lot). It is repetitive testing that will be extremely costly for the manufacturer. For giant toy manufacturers who run 10,000 items at once, that is not so bad. For smaller businesses, they just won't be able to continue production.

[TraceyS/FL]

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=692573

 

I posted that yesterday - some extra links in it.

 

I'll read these ones posted tonight.... after kids are in bed!

[lighthouseacademy]

So are you saying that until now we haven't tested these products at all for any type of compliance?

 

There has been testing done- this country already has certain import laws about lead compliance in children's products. What happened last year is that the company did not visit their manufacturer to make sure that they were complying with the existing laws. It was not a shortfall on the requirements for legal sale. Raw materials are already certified under different regulations. For example, if you buy fabric at the fabric store, it already must comply with various flammability laws or labels (ex not intended for children's sleepware is on all fabrics unless it has fire retardant on it). There are also child safety regulations with regards to what types of paints are used, etc. In terms of the European manufacturers like selecta and Haba, they comply with many existing regulations, which would pass these new regulations if tested, but the cost per unit of the new destructive testing PER SKU PER run would be too cost prohibitive to continue sales in the us.

[shell in SC]

So b/c one manufacturer didn't comply we should have the backbone to do what other countries do. . .don't allow them to sell here. I don't think we need to revolutionize the whole textile/toy industry b/c one company dropped the ball. Fine them, don't allow them to do business here. . .something. . .we shouldn't ALL have to pay for this b/c one company messed up.

 

I fail to see how this is a good thing. With the economy in the shape it's in I don't thing the benefits outweigh the risks on this one. This sounds like someone's pork. . .very few people will benefit from this one financially. This will drive prices up and force more unemployment.

[Emmy]

So are you saying that until now we haven't tested these products at all for any type of compliance?

 

There's a difference between testing every batch that comes through production vs. testing one time and assuming if none of the components change that testing is still reflective of the end product. It's just a lot more testing than what manufacturers have been doing.

 

But what they've been doing hasn't been working so change *is* needed. On the manufacturing level things are so different....a factory gets contracted to provide X product and yes it has to meet all these specifications and typically an approval sample is sent and agreed upon by everyone but then what does the factory do when they run out of this-and-such component that is needed to make X product and the retailer wants to buy more of X product. Do they say - nope we can't make any more X cause we don't have this-and-such that goes into it.....no, they take the order and they substitutde that-and-such for the this-and-such they are missing and typically no one is the wiser.

 

The lead in toys has probably been happening for years and years - it's just come to our attention now.

[newbie]

Why cant they limit testing to just China made products since that is where the problems lie. And if production is cut in China, so be it.:glare:

[Spy Car]

Huh. My wife has a dear friend who produces a wonderful handmade line of fleece and knit wear for children in Vermont employing local women (many who sew at home). She makes really beautiful things and is so conscientious about how she sources her materials.

 

Hers is exactly the type of small business that could be threatened by such requirements for the way I understand this. It's a shame when well meaning legislation has unintended consequences. I hope some common sense prevails when it comes to small and artisan producers.

 

Bill (who is concerned about lead)

[shell in SC]

Why cant they limit testing to just China made products since that is where the problems lie. And if production is cut in China, so be it.:glare:

 

 

That's what I'm saying! China has guidelines that their importers have to follow if they want to sell to China. I don't understand why we can't do the sayme and if they don't want to, sell your stuff somewhere else. The problem for them would then be. . .who would want it. The US is one of the most materialistic nations in the world, so if we cut them out who's gonna buy their stuff. It would be incentive for them to comply.

[shell in SC]

There's a difference between testing every batch that comes through production vs. testing one time and assuming if none of the components change that testing is still reflective of the end product. It's just a lot more testing than what manufacturers have been doing.

 

But what they've been doing hasn't been working so change *is* needed. On the manufacturing level things are so different....a factory gets contracted to provide X product and yes it has to meet all these specifications and typically an approval sample is sent and agreed upon by everyone but then what does the factory do when they run out of this-and-such component that is needed to make X product and the retailer wants to buy more of X product. Do they say - nope we can't make any more X cause we don't have this-and-such that goes into it.....no, they take the order and they substitutde that-and-such for the this-and-such they are missing and typically no one is the wiser.

 

The lead in toys has probably been happening for years and years - it's just come to our attention now.

 

But isn't the mat'l supposed to be lead-free, if so then it's the company/manufacturer responosibility to use suppliers that comply. I still don't see why a whole industry has to be turned upside down for this.

[Tracey in TX]

I think legislation is a waste of time. We should be responsible for our personal choices and what items are brought into our respective homes. If Family A opts to purchase items which Family B finds unsafe and unworthy, then let's allow each family to spend their money accordingly. I believe the market will follow the demands in which we place on it. Currently the trend requests these items be available to the American market.

[Spy Car]

I think legislation is a waste of time. We should be responsible for our personal choices and what items are brought into our respective homes. If Family A opts to purchase items which Family B finds unsafe and unworthy, then let's allow each family to spend their money accordingly. I believe the market will follow the demands in which we place on it. Currently the trend requests these items be available to the American market.

 

But how does that work if toys or clothing items contain lead paint or other toxic materials and a person has no way of knowing of the hazards?

 

And should any child be exposed to lead because their parents want to make the "personal choice" to buy cheap (but toxic) products if they are know to contain lead?

 

I don't think so. This is the whole rationale of having a government to protect our common interests, and the health of our most vulnerable.

 

Bill

[The Governess]

I wonder if smaller companies/individual sellers could be allowed to issue a disclaimer saying that their products have not been tested per the guidelines of this new law. Then the buyer could purchase at their own risk. Of course, the seller would be free to provide other information on how their materials were sourced to show that they are safe.

[StaceyinLA]

>>I don't think so. This is the whole rationale of having a government to protect our common interests, and the health of our most vulnerable.<<

 

I'm sorry, but we really just don't have a government that wants to protect the health of anyone. The government generally sticks its nose where it doesn't belong, and when it does try and have guidelines to protect us, it's a farce because whoever lines the politicians pockets gets the A-OK to keep on doing whatever it is their doing. Drug companies are a prime example and factory farming is another. Give 'em enough money and they'll approve just about anything, whether it's good for us or not!

 

All that needs to be done is to label the products to say they may or may not contain lead or other toxins. Then, a parent has to make the choice. It's no different from any other decision a parent has to make that could or could not endanger their child in any way (vaccines, foods, medicines, health care, day care, schooling, discipline, tv watching, etc.) The ultimate decision HAS to be the parents' - NOT the government.

 

A great example for me is flame-retardant pj's. I have NEVER purchased these for my children. If flame-retardant pj's DO catch on fire, or even if they heat up a lot, the material STICKS to your child's body. Can you tell me why it would be better for my child to have hot, chemical-laden fabric melted to their skin than to just catch on fire and stop, drop and roll?

 

Sorry for the rant, but I just don't think big daddy government is looking out for us...

[Spy Car]

 

I'm sorry, but we really just don't have a government that wants to protect the health of anyone. The government generally sticks its nose where it doesn't belong, and when it does try and have guidelines to protect us, it's a farce because whoever lines the politicians pockets gets the A-OK to keep on doing whatever it is their doing. Drug companies are a prime example and factory farming is another. Give 'em enough money and they'll approve just about anything, whether it's good for us or not!

 

All that needs to be done is to label the products to say they may or may not contain lead or other toxins. Then, a parent has to make the choice. It's no different from any other decision a parent has to make that could or could not endanger their child in any way (vaccines, foods, medicines, health care, day care, schooling, discipline, tv watching, etc.) The ultimate decision HAS to be the parents' - NOT the government.

 

A great example for me is flame-retardant pj's. I have NEVER purchased these for my children. If flame-retardant pj's DO catch on fire, or even if they heat up a lot, the material STICKS to your child's body. Can you tell me why it would be better for my child to have hot, chemical-laden fabric melted to their skin than to just catch on fire and stop, drop and roll?

 

Sorry for the rant, but I just don't think big daddy government is looking out for us...

 

You know what, I don't purchase fire retardant PJs either, and we have a bed without them too (it took a doctor's note) because I think fire retardant chemicals are toxic.

 

But I disagree that parents have an unbridled right to purchase dangerous lead contaminated toys or clothing items for their kiddos. And I believe the government has a duty to keep such items off the market.