UPDATED 12/23/08 (see below)
My brain has been churning with the new CPSIA regulations on one hand, and numerous petitions calling for an exemption from testing for smaller toy makers on the other. My first response was a feeling of distress over what many bloggers describe as the imminent doom of many small toy companies. I went immediately to sign the petition put together by the Hand Made Toy Alliance, but as I read through the grievances and the proposed solutions, I became more unsettled than ever. I realized then that I wasn’t sure what I thought about this whole situation. So I handled it the way I always do – I stepped back from my emotional response and began asking myself the hard questions:
1) Didn’t I fight for mandatory lead and phthalate testing?
2) Are toys made in the USA (and the other countries deemed more “trustworthy” like Canada and Europe) really safer based solely on their origin?
3) Are the required tests for lead and phthalates truly so cost-prohibitive that small toy companies will be forced to close their doors forever?
4) When it comes down to it, would I really feel comfortable giving my child a toy that hasn’t been tested?
Here’s how everything shook out for me:
1) Yes – I fought for mandatory testing and now the CPSC is finally giving children the protection they’ve needed for years.
2) No – I’ve learned the hard way that the quality of a product doesn’t have as much to do with its country of origin as it does with the company doing the producing. In fact, I was prompted to write a FAQ on why we sell products made in China over nine months ago in response to the inquiries of concerned parents. This point was cemented by the 2008 HealthyToys.org test results, when numerous products made in countries deemed as “safe” by some of the circulating petitions proved to be loaded with lead and other chemicals. It’s just too simplistic to say that avoiding toys made in China will solve all of our problems and will keep our children safe. The HealthyToys.org FAQ speaks directly the issue of product origin in stunning clarity:
Are toys made in the USA safer than those made in other countries?
Eighty percent of all toys purchased in the U.S. are made in China. Therefore, the majority of toys that we tested were from China. HealthyToys.org has not found a consistent correlation between the country of manufacture and the presence of toxic chemicals in toys. 21% of toys from China and 16% of those from all other countries had detectable levels of lead in 2008. 17 toys manufactured in the U.S. were sampled and 35% of those had detectable levels of lead. Seven toys (2%) had levels above 600 ppm. One of the highest lead levels detected (190,943 ppm) was on a Halloween Pumpkin Pin made in the USA. In February 2009, the U.S. government will begin to phase in new restrictions on lead and some phthalates in children’s products. While these regulations are intended to become more stringent in the future, the U.S. does not currently regulate any other chemicals in kids’ products.
3) I don’t know – so far I’ve seen no hard, fast evidence that testing will be as cost prohibitive as everyone is assuming. Will Feb. 10, 2009 really end up being remembered as National Bankruptcy Day? Let’s say it did come to that – should I throw my support behind such an ambiguous set of testing exemptions? I’m not convinced.
4) No – I’m not willing to chance giving my child an untested toy. I certainly don’t want find out a year later when HealthyToys.org releases their 2009 report showing that the toy my baby has been teething on is chock-full of lead. It’s too late by that time, and there is no justifiable reason for chancing irreversible harm when I have the opportunity to prevent it.
After considering the issues most important to me, my own personal convictions will not allow me to support such general exemptions, no matter the size or origin of the company. Instead, I believe we need to look at safety testing as a basic cost of doing business.
UPDATE 12/23/08: I just came across a letter of petition posted at CapWiz.com titled “New Product Safety Legislation Needs Clarifications Now.” I read through the letter and found that I felt much more comfortable with its wording and overall requests. It doesn’t call for general exemptions based on country of origin or levels of production, but instead asks Congress to work with the CPSC in clarifying specifics of application and testing, as well as a allowing a more lenient and non-retroactive implemention schedule. It is directed more at the clothing and footwear, but is also applicable to toys made inteaded for babies to mouth:
Urge your members of Congress today to work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to develop a pragmatic approach to the implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Strengthening our product safety system is an important goal, but this can only be achieved if there are predictable and commonsense regulations that address safety risks.
As you know, the August 14, 2008 legislation included a new ban on lead in children’s products (no more than 600 parts per million (ppm) by weight of any part of the product). According to the CPSIA, the new lead requirements take effect beginning February 10, 2009. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), however, has determined that this new requirement will apply to goods in inventory, as well as goods made on or after that effective date. This ruling effectively makes this new lead requirement retroactive. This means that product that I produced several months ago, and which is safe and legally compliant today, will not be able to be sold on February 10. This seems unfair, as it means we are being held responsible for a standard that didn’t even exist when we made those goods. Moreover, it will be extremely difficult – and in some cases impossible – to retroactively certify that individual goods already in the warehouses and on the store shelves meet the new lead standard.
In short, the ruling puts at risk millions of dollars of inventory.
Moreover, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has so far failed to provide clear guidance or issue regulations on how the new lead rules should apply to garments and footwear, even though this rule takes effect in just under 75 days. Guidance has thus far been provided in a piecemeal approach while the CPSC wades through a backlog of information requests and juggles multiple new rule makings with limited resources. Because of the incomplete guidance, we are being forced to undertake duplicative testing of components or to test elements of garments and footwear that are either inaccessible or that are inherently lead free. While testing forms an important validation, we do not see how these conflicting and burdensome requirements – especially for products and components that are inherently lead free – advance children’s safety.
I respectfully request your help ensuring that the CPSC institute rulemaking to clearly define the scope and applicability of the new lead regulations and testing requirements for apparel and footwear products. I also urge that CPSC announce and implement an orderly enforcement schedule that focuses initial phases on education of these new requirements. Finally, I believe the decision by the CPSC to apply the lead ban retroactively needs to be reconsidered as soon as possible since the practical impact of this decision, in today’s economic environment, will have an adverse effect at a time the government is spending billions to stimulate the economy.
>> READ about how the author of WAHM Solutions is trying to work through these same issues of unclear portions of the CSPIA regulations here. She explains how the regulations need more clarification in order to be implemented correctly by small business owners.
Pingback: Pages tagged "toys"
Pingback: Pages tagged "toys"
Pingback: Pages tagged "toys"
Pingback: Pages tagged "toys"
Pingback: Toy Safety - Is It Really So Clear Cut? at My Web of Life