Consumers Union Asks Nancy Nord, CPSC To Do A Better Job Explaining These New Toy Testing Rules
In this letter (PDF) sent to CPSC chair Nancy Nord, and released to the public, Consumers Union and a bunch of other consumer interest groups ask the CPSC to please do its part to clear up all the confusion over the coming Toy Testing Apocalypse. Don't want to read the whole thing? Here's a much shorter summary:
- The CPSC has the power to explain how smaller retailers and manufacturers should follow the new rules when they go into effect, but so far it hasn't;
- The CPSC should publish hard data on the real cost of testing, to help reduce the amount of misinformation circulating online;
- Consumers Union feels smaller manufacturers shouldn't automatically be exempt based solely on size, since company size doesn't guarantee a product will be safe.
As we mentioned before, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) that Congress passed last year requires any product intended for use by kids to be tested before it can go to market, which has a lot of smaller businesses wondering if they're going to be out of business in the coming months as the law is enacted.
The CPSC can do a lot more than it's done so far to explain the law to businesses, but other than releasing "some preliminary information regarding exclusions to the lead standard" on December 24th, its been largely silent. Why? It might be a political maneuver on Nancy Nord's part, which is what I suspect this final paragraph is hinting at:
Our children deserve the safest products possible. The bipartisan law approved by Congress in 2008 provides that safety. It would be tragic if your Commission, by failing to provide the appropriate guidance and exemptions, failed to effectuate this important new law.
Or, everyone at the CPSC might just be slow to react due to lead poisoning from too many tainted charm bracelets or something.
"CPSIA Clarification Letter" [Consumers Union]
(Photo: Intangible Arts)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam malesuada commodo erat et molestie. Duis pellentesque aliquam bibendum. Suspendisse venenatis lobortis eleifend. Mauris id est sed lectus convallis aliquam.
Post a comment
Comments:
damn government. Tries to do the right thing but even screws up that too
The "preliminary information regarding exclusions" document begins to address a lot of the claims floating around on the internet. It proposes exemptions for wood, stone, gems, natural fabrics like cotton, and other materials that probably are lead free.
But of course, the CPSC released it on Christmas Eve, so most people didn't read it.
Not that toys shouldn't be safe, but... I have two younguns and they aren't really into toys much. They like balloons, jumping on the furniture, blanket forts and whenever I have the vacuum out, they play with the retractable cord for an hour.
I SWEAR I haven't brainwashed them, but they would really rather check out how dinner is made than play with some brightly colored plastic crap.
@pollyannacowgirl: The new law will affect more than toys -- everyday items like clothes and books, including textbooks, are on the list.
Here is a very simple test:
Made in China = unsafe.
That would get a lot of dangerous stuff off the market!
I really like that we are linked with the Consumer Union. I'm happy that the institution that bought us is an active advocate for consumers.
I feel the synergy.
(Why can't our "conversation" get titles?
OFF TOPIC - What happened to that post from today about the spread of Wal-Marts across the country? I came back here to show it to my husband, and it's gone from Consumerist!
@ElizabethD: Ah, turns out it was a *really old* chart from last summer, and Meg had already posted about it back in July. Try this link for the animated outbreak goodness:
The CPSC needs some common sense changes as well, like allowing component testing for things like clothing and books.
Amazon.com is sending out letters to Marketplace vendors saying they have to prove BOOKS don't have lead/pthalates in them or they can't be sold. [bookshopblog.com]
@Triborough: Unfortunately, the way this legislation is written, it's basically a handout to big business. And they're the ones who have cheap, mass market toys manufactured in China.
It's going to put alternative makers and vendors out of business. The indie kids shops that cater to high quality, domestic-manufactured toys, clothes and other childrens goods can't afford this testing. Neither can micromanufacturers who handmake childrens toys with safe materials. And parents are going to have no other choice except to buy mass market toys from China, because that's all that's going to be left on the store shelves.
@kateblack:
That's the impression I got from reading the act. Indie produced US, Canadian, and European goods have time and time again won the confidence of the consumer while mass produced Chinese garbage has not. Why not direct the law squarely at those companies who have failed to police themselves?
I make stuffed animals and monsters and sell on etsy. This effects me greatly!
Making some common sense exemptions for cottage industries would help small crafters.
Making exemptions for source materials that would never be connected to lead or pthylaytes(sp) also makes common sense.
But the larger issue is that no one accused the government of utilizing common sense.
This law or lack of clarification is causing total chaos all over the internet. Freecycle groups are freaking out thinking they are going to become criminals for giving away kids clothes and toys. Various other groups are freaking out that all clothing and toy resale will be illegal including goodwill and consignment stores. Others are freaking out about small domestic producers all basically being shut down next month.
Either there is massive misinformation that CPSC must address and refuses to or were in for a shitstorm next month. Someone in the gubmint needs to tell us what one it is.
Nobody knows who to send scathing emails to in order to get this clarified, Congress or the CPSC.
I do believe there should be difference standards for different size companies.
An indie doll house maker who creates a top volume of 500 units a year should not be subject to the same standards as Matel which imports millions of toys from China yearly.
Matel should have to certify the process/materials for each and every model/make of toy it produces because those toys are produced en masse and could possibly be in the hands of hundreds of thousands of children. Production quality is not as tightly controlled so problems, when/if they occur are more difficult to trace. Changes in materials and production require a corporate wide effort, can be slow and costly.
The indie toy producer is able to tightly control the quality of material and production and can make instant changes to either if a problem occurs. They affect a more limited consumer population and are often using materials already verified by other labs (i.e. they buy paint from an art store that obtained it from a provider that already tested it for lead instead of having their own in house paint production.)
To me an indie toy producer has two responsibilities:
To research the materials they use to produce their toys as thoroughly as possible to ensure the safety of their product and to keep a record of those materials.
and
To sign/date or otherwise batch identify their creations so that any problems can be traced back to a specific point in time.
They can go one step forward and use an inexpensive lead swab test to check for issues when ever they make a change in product materials (IF THEY WANT) but past that I don't think they should be required to do any further testing.
Yeah I need to know whats going on so I can dump the remaining 1% of my toy stock on ebay before its illegal to sell it anymore. Glad I dumped almost everything I own on ebay before Xmas.
If its true that you can't sell any used toys anymore than ebay should be having a fit about it because there goes 50% or more of their revenue. In fact there are even more products being sold on ebay that are targeted at children under 12, so probably 70% of their revenue will be gone. What about vintage toys sold as collectibles only.
@whatdoyoucare: I'm working on a charity gala, and we're moderately unclear about whether we can include hand-made children's items in the charity auction. They really need to start clarifying.
@JamieSueAustin: thats like saying those who make custom cars shouldnt be held to the same saftey standards as Ford or GM. They make the same product, and should be held to the same standards, its not the bigger companies fault they are more successful.
What disturbs me about this is the change it marks in our society. I can't imagine a world where my future children will only own toys made in a mass-produced fashion, all of them with extra labels and marks denoting that they've been tested so that we're all extra-extra sure that they're safe. Is this the world we really want? This regulation isn't here to really make anyone safer--even with the huge China recalls, did anybody else notice how the stories never included tales of kids actually harmed by the toys, which would have been much more sensational, but only reports of how 40,000 doohickeys were being recalled?
All of those products were made in China, not here. They mostly involved lead paint, which a small producer here wouldn't even have access to. And to top that all off, all I can find on Wikipedia is a report of one single lonely case of lead poisoning, and the kid had to actually *eat* part of a charm bracelet that turned out to actually be 99% lead. And for that we're going to this? At what point do we need to stop arguing the niggling details of testing and start insisting that the regulation fit the risk?
A group of folks I chat with make glass beads to donate to a charity that in turn gives them to sick kids as they undergo treatment as milestones in their progress. I wrote to them today asking if this means that they'll no longer be able to accept the donations unless they can be proven to be lead free.
Unfortunately they don't know and will have to contact a lawyer to find out.
@Repique: *Applauding wildly*
Nanny state, nanny state.
I am in a bit of despair about this, and it doesn't even affect me, since I'm not a cottage industry or small company that makes toys.
tons of posts about consumers union now. hm...
@Eyebrows McGee: Just do whatever you want...the CPSC isn't going to send the Toy Police to a charity gala, and if they do then you can corner them and get an answer from them.
That picture of Dora looks like a dog dug it out of a sandbox and tried to eat it.
@xtc46:
I think you missed her point. By imposing an exceptionally expensive testing process on indy toy makers, you essentially put the small business owner out of business immediately, no questions asked. The larger manufacturers are able to absorb the costs of this testing much easier due to sheer volume.
In the car analogy, the state of MI tried to 'level the playing field' for custom cars by requiring airbags, side impact, blah blah blah, but when it came down to looking at the point of a custom car and the low volumes produced, they gave up on that mission and stuck with the basics like turn signals, brake lights, seatbelts, etc which are inexpensive and easily found. They are now classified as assembled vehicles, which makes them a little more difficult and expensive to insure, but you're still able to make, buy and sell them without being completely priced out of the game.
@xtc46: i can't agree with your analogy - someone who makes custom cars is still putting a lot of the same materials on the road as a large car manufacturer. and it's pretty much impossible for most people to make things like engines and transmissions from scratch. i have a friend who does custom cars and he purchases stock parts for all the machinery of the car. from what i have seen [i am not a professional car builder] the majority of the customization is exterior - bodywork and accessories.
but an independent toy maker knitting puppets, carving wooden blocks or building doll houses is not too likely to be injection molding plastics on a micro scale or stamping out toy cars from lead based metal mixes on an individual basis.
Children will not be safer if the result of this legislation is that parents have less opportunities to choose alternatives to the major toy brands' plastic twaddle. It was the huge companies, not the home based cottage industries or small specialty toy companies that created this issue. Congress passed "bragging rights" legislation (CPSIA) that tries to swat the lead flies with a shotgun. Really bad mixed metaphor, I know. But let's hope they realize the mess they've made before it's too late to save the small/family businesses.
I am a member of the Handmade Toy Alliance and the owner of a natural toy store in Minnesota. I think in a lot of ways, the goals of our members and the goals of groups like the Consumers Union and Kids in Danger are completely aligned. Our members got into the business of making and selling children's products because we wanted to provide an alternative to all the junk found in mass market stores.
But, the costs of complying with the CPSIA are extreme. At the Handmade Toy Alliance, our members have been getting quotes from private testing labs ranging from $300 to $4,000 per item. I've also seen a bill to test a telescope that totaled $26,000. Even at $300, if you multiply that cost by dozens of products, the costs quickly become untenable. The law requires each finished SKU to be tested.
Moreover, these labs are charging for tests that aren't even logical to perform. A manufacturer of unfinished wooden blocks was charged $500 to certify that his products are, indeed, unfinished wood. If you don't believe me, you can read about it in the Washington Post.
There are a finite number of labs, a very aggressive testing deadline, and the laws of economics are driving costs way up. Moreover, our manufacturers are reporting that labs are booked to capacity and cannot provide testing results in time for 2/10/09.
The problem with this law is scale. The incremental costs to Mattel to comply are minimal, but the costs to small businesses are enormous, especially businesses who have found their niche by making a wide variety of products in very small batches.
The Handmade Toy Alliance is asking for three specific things:
1. Natural materials should be broadly excluded from testing--not just the few so far identified by the CPSC, but also kapok, flax seed, jute, lavender, bamboo, etc.
2. Manufacturers should be able to rely on component-based testing, wherein the fabric manufacturer, the zipper manufacturer, and the snap manufacturer would each test and certify their products so that all items made from those products would be deemed compliant instead of requiring unit-based testing of the final product, which is exponentially more expensive.
3. We believe that micro-businesses, such as etsy crafters, should be allowed to continue to sell their products without testing in the same way the artisan cheesemaker at your local farmers market isn't required by the FDA to pay for a nutrition analysis.
We think these are common sense changes to the law that will save a lot of small businesses. We also think they will improve public safety by helping to focus the CPSC's energies on unsafe products instead of regulating the compliance certificates of otherwise safe products.
We would welcome the chance to talk to the Consumer's Union and Kids in Danger about how this law can be improved to make it more effective without decimating small business. I openly invite the groups named in the letter quoted above to write to info@handmadetoyalliance.org and initiate a discussion. I really do believe that we all want the same thing--better quality products for our children.
Thanks,
Dan Marshall
member, Handmade Toy Alliance
The problem was that the CPSIA was created by congress, not by the experts who know what is/is not effective in testing toys. This is the primary reason that the law casts such a wide net and CPSC is then creating regulations to meet the requirements of the CPSIA. It is my understanding that the Lead paint hazard was blown out of proportion by the media, and that lead poisioning dropped significantly with the elimination of lead from gasoline, and awareness of old lead paint used to paint homes. CPSC did a study back in the 1990s where they studied how long children actually place toys in their mouth where they would be exposed to lead paint, and as I recall, the amount of exposure was extremely small, so small that it surprised CPSC staff meaning that these new regulations were unnecessary. I am trying to locate that study but have not had any success yet.
@bohemian: Small businesses should contact the Small Business Administration. They will forward concerns on to congress and the CPSC. The nice thing about the SBA is that agencies are rated based on their response time so you will almost always get a response if you send it through the SBA. www.sba.gov
Why waste your time complaining to Nord.
That idiot is going to be canned in two weeks!
She'll be replaced with someone that:
1. Isn't an industry shill.
2. Has an actual working brain.
@Greasy Thumb Guzik: No she won't. CPSC is independent and therefore leadership appointments do not change with the presidential administration. The only thing that may change is the other commissioner may take over as acting Chairman until Obama can appoint the third commissioner (preseumably the Chairman). Regulations require that the commission leadership consist of at least one Democrat and one Republican
@batsy: Ah but there's the rub, the government doesn't care about what the people say only mob rule and profit.
So of course this bill was passed it gets more money into the machine and appeases stupid mob rule mentality.
If the government was efficient then laws like these wouldn't have been a knee jerk reaction they would have been well thought out plans. Just like the Iraq war and the Patriot Act.
@Skankingmike: I don't know how this would result in more money in the system, unless you think the CPSC will be able to actually collect on the $100,000 fines.
This will lower the amount of consumer goods available. Many businesses will fold and/or declare bankruptcy. And most of the (expensive!) testing facilities are located overseas and so they don't benefit the US economy.
@batsy: Simple they want tests done the CPSC pays for them. Individual companies wanting tests done get sent through the ringer (like everything else if your a business you pay 10x more for no reason). A government agency acting as the main client would be much cheaper and more accurate/trustworthy (I would like to think). If you say that would still be to expensive add limitations, i.e. companies with net value of 5mil or more still pay.
Thank you for spreading the word to your readers. Many people still don't know about this issue.
@Outrun1986: This is making me paranoid too. I have a lot of old toys/collectibles/etc. that are simply taking up too much real estate now that my wife and I have moved into a new house. Was planning on selling them on eBay to both get them out of the way, but make some good coin doing so. Ugh.
My wife is getting hit with this right now...
She has a home business in order to stay home with our 5yr old twins. She hand-makes dresses and monograms them. All materials are bought off the shelf from WalMart and local fabric stores. She makes about $25 per dress....
We looked into getting one her popular styles certified and the testing looked like it would cost about $650, a cost that could not be recouped. If any changes to the dress were made (different color or pattern of cloth) testing would have to be completely re-done for another $650.
Her business is effectively bankrupt and closed on Feb 10 if this doesn't get changed. So much for expanding and hiring as she was looking into...
Just another example of Gov not being a solution to the problem but the problem itself......
This makes me miss Jarts. [en.wikipedia.org]
What ever happened to parents taking the time and making ration decisions on what items there children have and play with.
Yeah I get it if the toy is made with poison. but let the free market figure all that stuff out. Besides this is a great way to do some human testing.
Or they could just label the box with the chemicals used to make the product. In the same way we label food.
I don't understand why small manufacturers, who are on the whole making things with products that have already been tested and declared legal for sale in the US, have to be held to the same standard as major corporations that purchase bulk raw materials and engage in their manufacturing overseas.
When I buy yarn in a shop to make a baby hat, I'm buying yarn that has already gone through testing for dangerous substances. When I buy fabric to make a doll dress, I'm buying fabric cleared for sale in the US and meeting all safety standards. Does the government really believe that I'm an alchemist who can turn non-lead-containing fabrics and threads into a lead-soaked garment through the power of touch alone?
My wife has a home based business making hand-made dresses and monogramming them. This is the only way that we can afford for her to stay home with our 5 year old twins.
We looked into testing one design. It looks like a cost of about $600 to get it certified. Since she uses many different types of fabric based on the design and customer preference, each different combination looks like it will have to be tested separately.
She's effectively out of business on Feb 10 unless this gets relaxed.
Why cant they just make the fabric wholesellers test the fabrics upon receipt??? That would protect folks like us!
"Government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem."
Ronald Reagan
@Rachacha:
But the new Congress is so fed up with the way she runs the CPSC, it's almost a lock they'll come up with a way to dump her.
@pollyannacowgirl: What kind of anarchist are you, that you believe the government *shouldn't* tell us how to raise our children! Or what to think! I'm calling Big Brother to report you, and myself.
@catastrophegirl: They're not too likely to be using the hazardous materials, but it's possible. Glazes, paints, certain types of wood treatments could all contain lead, and if it's in the source material, the individual craftsperson might not know it's there. And who's to say if the craft materials & paints are coming from another small business person, or from some giant factory who plays fast and lost with their processes?
CPSC seems to be saying that you can't trust anyone to actually keep lead and other toxins out of children's toys, books etc - so every finished product needs to be screened before it hits the market. What they should have done instead was find a way to screen ALL the raw materials, perhaps at import.
(Which is what I would love to see the FDA do as well - check warehouses & factories for sanitation, etc, but check the food ingredients - powdered milk, etc - before they get mixed into everything we eat)
@Repique: That case of lead poisoning is one of the rare acute childhood cases resulting from toys & household objects. Most lead poisoning is chronic, and even very small doses at certain ages (0-5 years) can cause developmental disorders and behavioral problems.
We don't know if any children were harmed, because 1) the effects won't be seen for years 2) there are very rarely clinical effects. You'd suffer a few IQ point drops, and in a lot of kids, you might not notice - especially if your nutrition is good. (High intake of calcium can 'block' lead from some neural effects). But in some children, it can be a big deal, and it's extremely difficult to determine if low-level lead exposure has damaged their health.
Many of the products recalled in the past few years were made in China - but a lot were also made in India, Indonesia, and Thailand. So you can't just shut borders to one country - it'll be plenty of them. Also, paint in the U.S. that is deemed 'lead free' can still have certain concentrations in it. So if you're a domestic manufacturer, you might be getting lead in your 'lead free' paint that goes on kids toys, despite your best efforts.
There was a panicked email that went out to my freecycle group from a member who said we would no longer be able to give away our children's toys or clothes anymore in reference to the new law.
Sigh.
Thankfully someone sent out an email correcting the notion that you couldn't even give away your used toys and clothes.