New Toy Safety Rule Has Collateral Damage: Handmade Toy Manufacturers
Thanks to big companies like Mattel, this may be the last Christmas season for a lot of handmade or custom toys from small businesses.
Here's the problem summed up in an Etsy FAQ from a woman who makes and sells puppets:
Q: So with this new law going into effect for children's toys, does this mean your toys will no longer be suitable for children?
A: BINGO! After February 10th, 09, none of my toys will be suitable for children under the age of 12. Apparently that's the date they all get poisoned. Research the CPSIA and write to your senator & congressman telling them that they'll totally put me out of the business of selling children's toys. (Dude, I just can't afford the $3,000 to test my toys.)
So what happened? Well, after last year's spate of killer lead toys and their subsequent recalls, the government stepped in with new legislation. Unfortunately, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act that they passed says that "manufacturers must now test for lead paint, and by Feb. 10 they must test for lead and certain chemicals anywhere in products made for children 12 and under." This means even small companies who, say, don't even use paint (much less import products from Chinese factories), will be required to shell out large sums of money to certify their toys are safe. The Los Angeles Times has a story out today that describes the grim future some of these small companies face:
"If they don't change the law, we'd have to close our doors," said Nick Christensen, owner of Little Sapling Toys in Eureka, Calif. "We won't be able to afford the testing."
His wooden rattles and building blocks, which retail for $20 to $40, would cost at least $1,500 per model to test, he said. Because he makes 20 models, his testing bill would be at least $30,000.
Christensen, who makes everything by hand, says the only things his products contain are wood and beeswax, and he's bitter about being forced to test them for lead.
Other manufacturers say they've been quoted testing prices of $24,000 for a telescope, $1,100 for a wooden wagon and $400 for cloth diapers, according to the toy alliance.
The Handmade Toy Alliance says that the law could be improved by exempting small businesses and by recognizing that certain manufacturing processes shouldn't require lead paint testing. (For instance, if your toys aren't painted or don't use plastic.) If the law stays unchanged, however (and if the fees for testing don't suddenly drop dramatically), then come this February you can expect either empty shelves in toy stores that specialize in handmade goods, or an explosion in toy "collectibles" that are labeled "not made for children."
"For some toy makers, rules to protect kids may be toxic" [LA Times]
RELATED
Handmade Toy Alliance
(Photo: Getty)
Post a comment
Comments:
This is pretty ridiculous.. these are probably the only toys you can trust anyway...
I'm getting into the lead paint testing business. $1,500 to $24,000 per toy? where do I sign up?
[www.harborfreight.com]
This is horrible!! It effects all of the BMX companies out there as well... because bikes with wheels 24" or less are considered "toys." Also, EVERY PART has to be individually tested and certified on a bike sold as a complete bike. Many small companies build frames only, then put parts on them to make a complete bike. They have to have each part re-tested (they already went through the test once before the small company received it) before it can be sold.
ALSO
Each batch of model, including color variations, has to be tested. Example: 5 different models, each in 3 colors, each with ~30 parts, at an average quoted test price of $50 per part, equals $22500 to test that batch of bikes. Bullshit.
One of my clients is a (US based) manufacturer of wood craft items and they're facing some strict new testing laws that are being put into place next year as well. While the tests aren't quite as expensive as those mentioned here (and aren't mandated over as broad a category as "children's toys") they are still quite expensive and are going to cost a pretty penny considering how many different products will need to be tested.
So maybe they should market their products as "decorations" instead of toys... let parents do the obvious dot connecting.
The only thing is that there is nothing saying that small, American owned toys are safe, either.
So, I'm actually for testing for all, personally - assuming that it's legistlated to be /actually affordable/ to everyone. :(
I'm glad our 13 year olds are still free to ingest unsafe levels of lead. ;)
It's a shame that testing that was put in place (in theory) to prevent cheap-o Chinese manufacturers from poisoning our children will now put legit companies out of business.
Meanwhile, Mattel is giggling at the outcome.
*facepalm*
...
*headdesk*
I can't believe people haven't figured this out yet. Regulation is a barrier to entry which big companies can afford to pretend to comply with and small companies can't. Large companies don't like it, but if they have to put up with it they'll make sure it serves the dual purpose of keeping competitors down. The joke that is Sarbannes-Oxley is another perfect example of this.
I'm not saying the idea in itself is bad. Sure, you could write these sanely so they don't hurt small companies disproportionately worse. But somehow they never do. And why is that? For the same reason your class action lawsuit 'reward' is a $5 credit towards $300 in new services for a company that criminally screwed you. They have lobbyists and you don't.
@Squot: That's the real solution, I agree: the price of testing needs to be bearable by small businesses.
OTOH if you make a product out of wood and never use paint or plastics on it, testing for lead paint and phthalates seems kind of bureaucratic.
It's rather difficult to paint in broad strokes when it comes to laws like this. But you also can't give small companies a "pass" either because the moment you do BAM a small toy maker gets busted after years of creating toys with lead in them.
If you ask me these toys should be tested, not just for lead but for other toxic things found in wood stains/shellac ect. However the cost of these tests seem highly unreasonable.
If those doing the testing are immoveable in price, perhaps some of the toy testing groups could begin to collaberate with small toy makers and facilitate this type of testing (I mean they are going to do it anyway right?)
What I don't understand is why they'd have to pay for a dozen tests for what is in effect, the same wood. If it's all the same, one test would be sufficient. Or would they make them test every different batch of wood that came in? Madness.
This could be easily fixed with a few sanity checks on the law. does it have paint or plastic or actual visible lead? if no, don't need to test. if yes, where did the paint come from? if somewhere that doesn't use lead, have the maker sign an affidavit and be done with the matter. if plastic, then require tests on the plastic base, no need to mold the plastic, then cool it. if it's a lead miniature, smack a warning label on it. there, I've solved everyone's problems, and then you can actually jail the ones who perjure themselves.
@dragonfire81: The concept supposedly is what helped cement the industrialist robber barons' grips on their markets back in the day.
I'm sorry, but I just can't feel bad for this manufacturer. It doesn't seem all _that_ expensive to test. If the law did exempt small businesses, you know mega corps would use it as a loophole.
It is not that hard to start a new corporation, and it may cost Mattel less to start "Barbie Doll Batch #2343, Inc" than it would cost to certify their cheap chinese crap.
I have a feeling that no matter HOW the rules are written, there will be:
a) Somebody put at a disadvantage
b) Somebody willing to interpret them in such a way that they appear to be either exempt or in compliance, but in material fact are completely otherwise
c) Somebody will break them, with fatal or near-fatal consequences to a consumer, causing the rules to be rewritten. Go to beginning of comment, repeat ad infinitum
Correct me, but haven't the VAST MAJORITY (perhaps even all?) of the recent lead-tainted toys been made in China or of parts imported from China?
Goodness, why not just require tests on toys and toy parts imported from China? Forget political correctness and nip the problem in the stinking bud!
Sounds to me like they can just put a label on their product that says something to the effect of:
This toy has not been tested for the presence of harmful chemicals such as lead and is therefore required to carry the recommendation that it be used by children of 12 years or over.
@dangermike: Bingo.
Or, shorten it to: "This toy is designed for children ages 12 and up."
It's like aftermarket motorcycle exhaust. "Designed for off-road use only." Ha ha ha, take that noise-reduction laws.
I guess this makes up for the $0.39 excise tax on wooden arrows made for children that was added to the $700bn TARP bill...
@Andy Mack: It's not political correctness. It's just about the money. I don't think anyone in this country is worried about being "insensitive" to to Chinese toy manufacturers, and I'm sure that the Chinese people running those manufacturers don't really care if we stereotype them or whatever as long as we keep buying their stuff.
@Ninjastorm66: Personally, I don't like being exposed to absurdly loud motorcycle noise. It's obnoxious. But at least the noise isn't poisonous.
@bagumpity: Yes, it's impossible to write a perfect regulation. There will always be someone who tries to evade a regulation. But things would be way worse with no regulations. It's like any other law -- we have laws against murder and robbery even though people still murder and rob. But the law still has the effect of reducing murders and robberies.
And now watch for a Libertarian to say that if there were no regulations whatsoever, the market would take care of everything and we'd be truly free...
The government should force the big you companies to pay into a fund which would subsidize testing for the smaller companies. Then if necessary they establish a maximum fee for the testing. Everything is tested and the smaller manufacturers gain a small advantage against the large ones, meaning that consumers can choose from a more diverse range of toys overall. Problem solved, market improved.
Why isn't anyone looking into the testing facilities?
Why does it cost anywhere from $1,100 - $24,000 to test a product?
If every product gets the same testing regimen, shouldn't it be of a similar price? Sure I can see big products costing more. But $20,000 more for a telescope? No way does it cost them that many extra hours of labour.
Could there be some price gouging here now that everyone is forced to test?
There ought to be some kind of streamlined certification process for such businesses, like a form you fill out stating something like, "I swear on a stack of Manhattan phone books that none of my toys contains anything that might contain lead."
This is exceedingly stupid, but I guess if you are as willing to overlook warning labels as your average two pack a day smoker, a way could be devised to work around the testing requirement. The "collectible" requirement might work.
@Crim Law Geek: A small manufacturer might typically have profits of anywhere from $50,000 to $250,000 in a given year. If they produce 10-30 different products and the cost of testing is $3,000 each then that could represent a very significant portion of their profits.
I say, label it. Allow consumers to determine what to buy: This toy has not been tested for safety.
or
This toy has been USDT (US Department of Toys) certified to meet safety guidelines.
Done.
@Crim Law Geek:
You don't feel bad for independent artisans who started making toys so that their kids could have an alternative to dangerous & unethically produced toys, who now have these alternatives OUTLAWED? And in many cases, lose their livelihoods because of this?
For handcrafters like Stacey Rebecca (who makes sewn puppets out of felt and recycled materials) and indie sellers who started boutique stores to sell handcarved wooden educational toys, they go from having an asset to having a liability, literally overnight.
There is no common sense in this law, and the ONLY people who get hurt are the small and midsize businesses who can least afford it, and CONSUMERS who can no longer choose alternatives to made-in-china toys.
Why don't we just STOP using chinese made crap so these laws (i.e. common sense!) aren't needed?
@vastrightwing: For sales sake, I'd rather see a label "not tested for lead".
But seriously, with a label like that, who's gonna buy it for their little specials? No one I think.
@Andy Mack: If they legislated testing to Chinese imported toys only (which isn't a bad idea, IMHO), the World Trade Organization would scream bloody murder. Welcome to the New World Order.
@Chris Walters: BUT THE COMMIES MIGHT HAVE INJECTED THE TREES WITH LEAD IN AN ATTEMPT TO KILL OUR CHILDREN! [/sarcasm]
@G99: The reason is because they have to test each part of a product. The law makes no allowance for a manufacturer testing each part of a product.
example: I make a necklace for kids that uses 1 piece of string, 2 different wooden beads, one with paint and one with varnish and one plastic bead and a clasp, I have to test each component. The wood (x2), the paint & varnish (+2), the string (+1), the clasp which-- oops! has 3 parts (+3) = 8 parts @ $300/per = $2400. How many necklaces do you have to sell to cover just the testing? What if I'm just some granny making these for the kids in my church? Still liable for $100G per offense under this regulation.
There is NO common sense in the implementation of this law.
What gets me about all this "lead scare" stuff is all the toys with blinking lights, sounds, circuit boards, and other fancy electronics. Don't you guys know what SOLDER is made of? If it takes batteries, it probably has some lead in it. Not that it makes it a risky toy, but chill a little...
@Eric1285: For micro manufacturers, like those on Etsy, Artfire and other sites for artisans & makers of handcrafted goods, it's entirely prohibitive.
@SacraBos: Well this is all about parental supervision too. Those dot things that had the date rape drug in them - where was the parent ensuring the kid wasn't eating the stuff?
Laws like this can't make up for greedy companies and irresponsible parenting.
@dangermike: Actually, no, they can't. If your product is determined to be a toy or something children under 12 might use, even if you say otherwise (even on a label), your product is still subject to CPSIA. This could be a problem even for things that really weren't intended for children--say, lip gloss or hair clips or whatever.
I'd like to point out that this isn't just for toys, either, it's for anything for children under 12. "Clothing, school supplies, cloth diapers, car seats, boy sc...".
@kateblack: Ahhh...thanks for the clarification on that. OK, I can see now how the prices can easily skyrocket.
I am in the camp that everything needs to be tested. Even "natural" wood products could be covered in a harmful sealant or protective coating.
Just scale it to be reasonable to the product testing. Like there needs to be no cost for testing lead in something that would in no way contain it.
@vastrightwing: absolutely agree, just like UL standards, granted a lot of products without the UL stamp never make it past the store's buyers that decide what goes on the shelves, but there's no reason to completely choke off the industry if a simlpe label will suffice.
another related situation that comes to mind, in the early 90's there was a crackdown on alcohol and tobacco sponsorships being printed on die-cast cars, considered to be toys, they were permitted to continue producing cars with alcohol and tobacco sponsorships printed on them by adding "Adult Collectable" to the graphics on the box.
@G99: And I think it's histrionic, doesn't serve children's best interests (because there are no common sense clauses and this regulation will REMOVE smart alternatives to stupid, made-in-china crap from their parents' grasp) and will be ruinous to small business.
Here's something I posted in another forum about CPSIA laws:
Go watch this video:
The OP of that video has uploaded three separate videos.
Pt 1 is 6min+
Pt 2 is 8min+
Pt 3 is 8min+
If you don't have time to watch them all, watch the one I linked. About 4 minutes in, this manager of Learning Resources (which sells and manufactures science items for school systems) addresses the financial repercussions of this law on small & mid-size businesses.
This law as written will be financially DEVASTATING to all indie businesses that create anything which might come into contact with children and all businesses that sell wares that might come into contact with children. That means if you consign to someone and they don't test everything in their store, they may shut down and have to declare bankruptcy, so your wholesale accounts are threatened.
It doesn't surprise me that this is coming around at the same time as the Orphan Works law, which would devastate copyright protection as we know it. Both are designed to shut down the little guy.
@Squot: @Chris Walters: The price of and testing requirements are absolutely prohibitive for business.
These videos of Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources were posted on Youtube. His company deals science products for use in school systems. He talks about the true repercussions of these new regulations.
Just sell them as "novelties" and "Marital Aids."
@Irashtar: Testing source material can be problematic as processing can change the behavior of some materials-especially plastics. If I'm making some trinket with a blastic bauble on it, and I make a hole in the plastic my melting my way through, it has the potential to chemically alter the plastic. This wouldn't come up in source testing.
Still, some degree of common sense needs to be applied here-I'm with you on that.
@vastrightwing: how about "not made in china, handmade in america, by ". that would pretty much sum up the safety. for christ's sake. and it's not like humanity hasn't gotten this far despite lead poisoning anyway. even our roads still have lead paint on them.
how bout we take care of air pollutants and sewage runoff into our water supply and oceans first?
I can say from the Stay-At-Home-Mom scene that this law is redonkulous and while it may have our kids' best interests at heart it's always a gigantic scheme to bilk thousands of independent and small business owners out of millions of dollars to certify that their wares are as safe as their customers already know they are.
Also keep in mind that the folks making the components of these goods (thread, cloth, fillers, etc) -do not- have to pay for testing, only the person manufacturing the goods. How is that in any way fair?