CPSIA-The Gift that Keeps on Giving, Business ICU

One of the best gifts we gave our daughter this Christmas was a six month subscription to the best play dough on the market. It comes packaged in a reusable tin, and my daughter gets a new color each and every month. Not only does she look forward to getting her present in the mail, something kids at her age adore, but the colors are not exactly what you find in the store. This month it happened to be a charcoal color with sparkles mixed in. I can't tell you how much enjoyment my daughter has gotten from this monthly surprise, and this stuff is amazing!



I'm sure there are lots of homemade play dough recipes out there, but I just love the fact that I don't have to do it, and the "mail thing" is an added bonus for my daughter. This dough stays supple (as long as you promptly put it away, like all dough) and goes through all her molds like a dream. Better still, it doesn't take too much to clean it up, and leaves very little mess behind.


I haven't checked in with the proprietor of this wonderful shop to see what she might do about the CPSIA. Clearly, her products are intended for use by children under 12, and even more clear is that they are not toxic in the least. In fact, they are most likely made with things everyone probably has on hand in their pantry. To lose these sellers in the wake of this inane law would be a real tragedy. There are so many non-toxic, imaginative toys, made and sold in this country. I hope we can all keep the pressure on to get the law amended.

By the way, that isn't charcoal gray play doh on my daughter's fingernails. She ate about a half a package of frozen blueberries last night, and the juice stained them purple. Hey, at least she loves fruit!

A Cross Post from Fashion Incubator

I wanted to cross post this blog entry from Kathleen Fasanella, www.fashion-incubator.com, because I think it important enough to be widely read. There has been much discussion about a small business exemption, and while I can appreciate the sentiment, I do not share the view. I DO NOT want a small business exemption from the CPSIA. Why? Because I want my products to be as safe as they can be. Because eventually I want to play with the big boys. Because it serves no purpose other than to splinter the fight against this law. What I DO want are clear guidelines, reasonable testing procedures, inclusion of component testing and supplier provided certifications which are not acceptable under the current law. I want the ability to test with XRF technology, which is quite effective at ascertaining lead. So without further ado, excerpts from Kathleen's post:



Don’t throw yourself under the (CPSIA) bus

Posted by Kathleen Fasanella on Jan 19, 2009

By now, those of you following on twitter or here in the forum may have read the letter that the most strident legislative backers of CPSIA namely Waxman, Rush, Rockefeller and Pryor, sent to Nancy Nord of the CPSC. Many have taken this letter as a good sign because it’d mean that the law’s primary proponents have publicly acknowledged there are grave issues with the law. Within our own community, the letter is seen positively because it specifically requests a “small company” exemption. Other than that they faked you with a classic bait and switch -a bone they’re thrown to get you to shut up- hinging all your hopes on a possible exemption would be a grave strategic error. Unknowingly, you will be throwing yourself under the bus. Many of us suspect that the idea of a small company exemption is a strategy to placate the masses. They are hoping you will rest easy and stop annoying congressmen and senators with phone calls and letters or continuing to lobby the press for attention. Fewer of you will be going to the media with your concerns and the negative news stories will dry up if you think there’s a fix in the works. This is the last thing that should happen. Do not rest easy.

For starters, have you given any thought to how “small company” will be defined? According to the SBA -the Small Business Administration- small (in the needle trades, SIC 315) means a firm with fewer than 500 employees. Using the governmental standard would mean that nearly everyone who makes children’s products would be exempt from the law but this implies that retailer’s more stringent interpretations of CPSIA don’t matter (more later). Small would include firms like Hanna Anderson and Gerber as well as all of you. In fact, there are probably fewer than 10 firms in existence that have more than 500 employees because children’s wear is dominated by small companies (68% have fewer than 20 employees). Now, because a “small” business exemption would include nearly all producers, it is not likely that this is the definition that would be used under any proposed CPSIA amendments.

The reason is, it’s no secret that there is a direct correlation between safety and company size. Contrary to what many think, it is tiny companies that have more products failing than large firms as Jennifer Taggert -who’s tested thousands of products- can tell you. In other words, special interest groups know that giving the tiniest companies an exemption would actually increase the proportion of dangerous products on the market, so why would it pass? It won’t. As such, the consensus seems to be that the mention of a small company exemption is for politically expedient reasons. Do not be misled, it’s a bone thrown to you to keep you quiet. A small company exemption is likely to fail and in the mean time, having relaxed, the movement loses traction.

In summary, even if you qualify for an exemption to come, retailers will have gone under or you’ll grow out of the exemption very quickly. What everyone is forgetting here is the affect of this law on retail. Everyone is so busy licking their own wounds that they don’t realize that even if small companies skate by, retail stores -who buy most of their stock from companies larger than you- will go under so they won’t be around to take on your line. If retail goes under, tiny companies will either fail themselves or at best, stagnate. This why a small company exemption will not work and throwing larger firms under the bus in an effort to save your own hide will backfire.

Due to liability concerns, retail is demanding much stricter standards than what the CPSIA requires. Wal-mart put all their vendors on notice to supply lab results -not just GCCs- for anything shipped over the last three seasons. Fail to comply and they’ll ship it back. Burlington Coat Factory is demanding GCCs for everything shipped since January 1, 2006. Failure to comply means being assessed a chargeback that presumably feeds into an escrow pool in the event they’re sued by consumers. I received an email from someone who sells to Macy’s last week; they are demanding vendors produce a GCC within 24 hours of request. Or else. And yeah, I get it that most of you don’t sell to Macy’s, Wal-Mart or BCF but it affects you because if the apparel companies that do sell to them go under and they also sell to smaller stores you want to sell to and constitute the majority of their stock, those stores will go out of business too meaning you have lost a customer or at least a potential customer. Just as all boats float in a rising tide, they all flounder with the lack of one. In this case, decreased competition in the market place is destroying your chances rather than increasing your opportunities. Don’t you see that?

You don’t have to take my word for it, here’s some choice testimony from independent store owners. This is why their standards are stricter than what the CPSIA requires:

Many small stores like myself don’t have the power to send anything back…but regardless if you can or can’t send back, we will still be empty come Feb 10. In fact, most spring lines that are shipping right now are testing using XRF rather than 3rd party to save some time and expenses I presume, and since it’s not required of them until then. But that means come August, retailers like myself will be in the same predicament and will have to empty their shelves yet again and throw away their inventory come August! So I’ve made the decision not to accept any new inventory without 3rd party tests from now on. Sadly that looks like I’ll have a pretty empty store since we focus on handmade and smaller boutique labels for kids.

Another store owner said:

I have only received one Certificate of Compliance from a single manufacturer that applies to 2 of my 4000+ products. Several of my smaller manufacturers have told me that there is no way that they can afford the testing and they will probably go out of business. Some of the larger ones are “looking into it” but it will be several months before they will have anything and then it will only be for their new shipments, not for anything I have in my inventory now. Many of my suppliers are small custom crafters who are stunned to hear about this and of course will not be able to provide certificates. Other manufacturers are simply refusing my calls .

The only thing the most recent letter sent to the CPSC proves is that Congress does know there’s a problem with CPSIA but rather than rest easy, we must step up the pressure now more than ever. Everyone has targeted CPSC for outrage but the hold up is Congress; there will be no change of CPSIA! Are you aware there was a meeting held for congressional staffers last week? Here’s a report from sources who attended the meeting.

Even more outrageous, unnamed staffers are reported to have stated that no hearing would occur until an additional CPSC Commissioner was appointed, and that CPSC would be “unable” to appear at any earlier hearing. In other words, they have no intention of holding hearings in advance of the February 10 implementation date, despite the reams of data they possess on the many serious problems their law is causing. Actually, it is my understanding that the CPSC has requested such a hearing, but that request apparently fell on deaf ears. Spin, spin, spin - and then tell everyone that all discordant views are misinformation or the confusion of [fill-in-the-blank] people. Finally, to cap it off, we understand that House staffers are simply “too busy” to attend meetings with industry and the CPSC to discuss the details of the real life impact of the law.

In other words, CPSC has availed themselves to deal with the problem but it is Congress -in spite of their politically self serving letters- that is gumming up the works. So Waxman, Rush, Pryor and Rockerfeller write a letter that’s released to the public, and everybody thinks the ball’s back in CPSC’s court. It’s not. CPSC’s request for a meeting has been refused. So while you think CPSC is the bad guy and the heat is off Congress, this can only amount to grandstanding to get you all to shut up. By the time you realize Congress is not going to move on it, it’ll be too late. Actually, word has it it’s not even Congress per se but a few key congressional staffers with the power to do this. I can’t mention names but it brings to mind the immense power that eunuchs held behind the thrones of Imperial China.

So what can you do?

You can email but avoid putting the word “CPSIA” in the subject line so they can’t create an email filter to dispose of them easily. Also, be smart with your subject line, do not write “HELP” or whatever in all caps. Even I delete those thinking those are spam. Write a professional subject line.

In addition to emailing your legislators, send an email to all these congressional aides who decide what your Congressman sees.
If you’ve posted an Etsy protest page listing the costs of your product with testing, it is requested that you email that. Do not email a link to your page, they won’t go. Paste in your photo and the text.
Email your testing price quotes.
Fill out the Economic Impact Survey
Continue calls, letters and emails to the media. Of everything you are doing, this has the greatest impact. Do not be persuaded that Congress is acting on this; they are not.
Feel free to use this text file to create a hyperlink that will automatically open an email window much as I did above and post it everywhere.


If you want to read the original post go to www.fashion-incubator.com. Thanks for your support.

I Got XRF'd Yesterday...the good, bad, and truly hideous

Rob Wilson, of Challenge & Fun, and http://www.cpsia-central.ning.com, rented an XRF gun, and since his company is relatively close by, I took advantage. After a challenging 2 hour drive with my toddler in tow, I understand even more how truly challenging it is going to be to stay afloat after this law goes into effect. At any rate, I thought I would talk about the whole process of XRF testing.

I had both my current inventory with me, and lots of swatches of the fabrics that I have been using throughout the past year. I also had each and every trim, piping, rick rack, and embellishment that goes into and onto my clothing. Believe it or not, I had all of my buttons as well, and there is the rub. But more about that later...

Here is how it works. XRF, or x-ray fluorescence, is able to detect the type of material being tested, and also the heavy metal composition. Depending on how the user sets the parameters, one can tell how many parts per million (ppm) are in any given substance. You put the gun flat on the object, or use a small stand with a cover for smaller items like buttons, and pull the trigger. After about 30 seconds, it records the readings, and voila, pass or fail. It also gives the amounts, all the way down to less than 5 ppm.

All of my textiles and trims passed with flying colors, as expected. The manufacturer of my materials has told me as much, but it's good to know for sure. The buttons on the other hand were a different story.

The vintage buttons, understandably in some cases, failed in a big way. What was more surprising however was that none of the buttons I use are metal. They are all plastic, nylon, or acrylic. The problem seemed to stem from buttons that had any kind of shimmer, or a pearl-ized look. It seems the manufacturers of these buttons must be specifically adding lead to get a metallic look. The other interesting finding was that if one color in a style failed, then the other ones would too. The color of the button proved to be of no consequence, it was merely the presence of a metallic look that gave any prior indication of a failing grade.

The thing that was challenging to me was that not all the metallic ones failed, only a certain few. These are new buttons though, not vintage, and on first glance it is nearly impossible to tell which one might contain lead. So, my recommendation to others would be to make sure you are testing your buttons, and also to avoid shimmery styles. I obtain my buttons from a reputable distributor, but I did notice a disclaimer on their website for the first time last week. Yes, you guessed it, "not intended for use by children under 12". Big surprise...

So the good: all textiles passed, even vintage fabrics. The bad: A 5 hour round trip drive with a toddler, and 3 1/2 hours of testing...what drudgery! The truly hideous: I'm losing some styles of buttons I love. Alas, not worth the risk. Eventually, I'll post all the style numbers and manufacturers of the buttons that failed, so that you too can avoid these styles. If they end up sitting on the shelves long enough, maybe the button manufacturers will change their practices. Just maybe...

SAVE HANDMADE Promotion!

I'm taking part in a promotion to save handmade from the CPSIA. Many other businesses are also offering discounts, so be sure to check out everyone's shops. This is being run by the Etsybaby and EtsyKids teams. Thanks to Jen from http://goldtonedesigns.etsy.com for the graphic!

http://shopetsybaby.com/CPSC http://shopetsybaby.com/CPSC2

http://shopetsybaby.com/CPSC3 http://shopetsybaby.com/CPSC4

http://shopetsybaby.com/CPSC5 http://shopetsybaby.com/CPSC6

http://shopetsybaby.com/CPSC7 http://shopetsybaby.com/CPSC8

http://shopetsybaby.com/CPSC9 http://shopetsybaby.com/CPSC10

http://shopetsybaby.com/CPSC11

CPSIA Comments, Question 5

"Whether and how the use and control of subcontractors would be affected by
allowing the third-party testing of component parts."

This is the hardest question for me, because I don't contract out, and have no experience with the manufacturing process outside my own basement. So here goes.

A quality control system would have to be put in place that may include randomizing testing and implementing stricter quality control processes. Instead of checking the first few from a production run, a manufacturer might pull and spot check somewhere down the production line. That way if the contractor has substituted a tested component for another, a check against the original components could be performed. In the apparel industry, this could be performed by a visual inspection compared against the original compliant components specified by the manufacturer.

As for toys, or other products, this might be harder to determine. Whether a certain paint has been swapped for another, might be difficult to tell without doing random unit testing. However, if you did do unit testing on one of the first few from the production run, and then later on a switch was made, unit testing wouldn’t have made that product any safer versus component testing. It really comes down to random quality control.




I welcome all of your comments to help me formulate these responses, as I'm pretty sure I'm not aware of many of the complicating factors that many businesses face.

_________________

CPSIA Comments, Question 4

On to Question 4:

"Assuming all component parts are compliant, what manufacturing processes and/or environmental conditions might introduce factors that would increase the risk of allowing non-compliant consumer products into the marketplace."


There is no manufacturing process that has the possibility of introducing lead unless it involves introducing a new component that might contain lead, ie. solder. Simply heating, sewing, cutting, ironing, and the like, cannot change the chemical make up of the unit, and will not introduce lead if it doesn't already exist.

If however during the process of manufacturing, an untested component is introduced such as solder or a surface coating, then that might change whether or not the unit is compliant. But, the fact remains that if all the components have been tested, then processing those components will not alter the chemical compounds significantly enough to pose any hazard.

My husband and I laughed at this one this morning. Short of alchemy, or having a nuclear reactor in your manufacturing facility, introducing lead where none exists is impossible.

CPSIA Question 3

Forgive me if this is a tad incoherent, and replete with run-on sentences, but I wanted to get something down on paper before I headed to bed. Here is the next question that the CPSC is taking comments on regarding component testing.

The conditions, if any, under which supplier third-party testing of raw materials or components should be acceptable.

The conditions which supplier third-party testing of raw materials and components should be accepted is if the manufacturer using those raw materials does not alter them in any chemical way. For example, a fabric manufacturer tests each fabric for lead and it is under the allowable limit according to the CPSIA. The fabric manufacturer then sends a copy of the test results to the manufacturer of the children’s product, or has them available electronically. Provided the manufacturer of the children’s product does not chemically alter the fabric (painting, surface coating, etc.), then that supplier third party test should satisfy the requirement of the CPSIA. It would not be cost effective to retest already tested materials, and retesting would not make that particular product any safer for the child. If the manufacturer is cutting and sewing a raw material, and not altering it in any other way, supplier third party testing should be acceptable.

Moreover, the cost of testing already tested materials not only hinders business, but it is redundant and unnecessary. As manufacturers seek out raw materials that are inherently lead free, or have already been tested by the supplier and shown to comply in order to avoid costly testing, the likely result is that less lead will be introduced into the supply chain. The demand for supplies that have already been tested would likely rise. If a supplier cannot prove that his raw material complies with the law, then the demand for his product would go down, resulting in fewer raw materials that contain higher levels of lead.

In fact there are many European standards that already exceed regulations set forth in the CPSIA to date, and as such should be allowed as part of a testing program. Supplier provided certifications would dramatically lessen the economic impact on small businesses, and allow many to continue operations.

CPSIA Question 2

Question 2: The conditions and or circumstances, if any, that should be considered in allowing third-party testing of component parts.

The conditions that should be considered in allowing component testing are if the actual components used in the finished product are the same as those that were tested. Provided that each component has not been chemically altered, or any additional raw materials are introduced into the finished product, then component testing should be allowed.

In fact, component testing would be superior to unit testing when one small component would be over the legal limit for lead. For example, the allowable limit is 600 parts per million for the entire unit. If the buttons used on a garment were over that limit, but there were only 2 used on a finished garment, that allowable limit would probably not be exceeded for the unit, but would be exceeded for the component. In this case, component testing would reduce the danger of a small component of the overall product being over the allowable limit for lead.

CPSIA Question 1

The CPSC has requested comments from interested parties regarding component vs. unit testing and supplier provided certification. I'm going to take these question by question, even though many seem to be redundant. Please feel free to use my responses as part of your own, but I do think the more varied the verbiage the better. If they hear from many of us in our own voices, maybe they will actually listen.

On to the questions:

Number 1: How the risk of introducing non-compliant product into the marketplace would be affected by permitting third-party testing of the component parts versus of a finished consumer unit.

The only risk that would be introduced into consumer goods by component testing versus unit testing would be if a manufacturer substituted a different component after the component testing was completed. Say for example a certain trim was used in the prototype and the testing was completed on that particular trim. That trim then became unavailable for production and a different trim was substituted for the production run that was similar, but untested.

Similarly, if the manufacturer embellishes the product with appliqués, roller paints, iron decals, or other such embellishments, and did not have these components tested previously, there might be a chance of introducing non-compliant components.

However, a manufacturer should be allowed to permit the certifications from suppliers for the unaltered component parts, and additionally test those components for which no testing has been performed. Then that unit should be deemed sufficiently tested. Provided the manufacturer tested each component that was part of the finished unit, and no substitutions were made, then no subsequent risk would be introduced.

CPSIA and NAM

As I was reading Kathleen Fasanella's blog today (it's all good by the way, and there is so much information, it is mind blowing for a designer) there was a link to a petition as set forth by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) that I believe is truly outstanding in a "so rational it's scary" sort of way. In it they have petitioned the CPSC to clarify the intent of the CPSC in regards to supplier provided certifications, exemptions for components that have little or no lead in them, and other provisions for inaccessible parts.

It is the best thing I have seen to date, and makes the most sense to me as a small business owner who wants to eventually grow her business. I don't want an exemption from the law just because I am a small manufacturer making things out of my home. I realize that I am a manufacturer, regardless of the size of my company. I want to play by the rules. I want my products to be as safe as they can be. But certain things about complying with this law do not make sense.

Why do we all need to go through the expense of the third party testing when it has already been done by the fabric manufacturer? The thread manufacturer? And the fact remains, that fabrics alone are not a real source of lead to begin with. Perhaps if I were surface coating them, or printing them, I might think twice, but I am not. Forgive me, but we'd all be very, very sick by now if there was a real risk of lead contamination from cotton clothing.

OK here is the petition. It's beautifully written in legalese, so it ought to get someone's attention over there at the CPSC since they are so fond of that language.

Thanks for your support.

Melissa

The CPSIA and its Unintended Consequences

I have been putting off writing this because it just makes me feel heartsick. I have felt a bit like chicken little whenever I have talked about this new law to my friends because when I bring up the consequences of this new law under the Consumer Protection Safety Commission, it feels like I'm saying the sky is falling. But for many of us with handcrafted products and small businesses, this really is the case.

To recap the law as I understand it, all products that are intended for the use of children under the age of 12 must now be sold with a Certificate of General Conformity. That certificate must state that the product in question has been certified for minimum parts per billion of lead and if applicable phthalate content. This includes fabrics, buttons, zippers, surface coated materials, toys, books, electronics, and the like. Basically nothing is exempt whether you make one of a kind items, or are the importer/manufacturer of articles that wind up in big box stores. It effects everyone. The manufacturers of the raw materials are not subject to this testing, because these items are not largely marketed to children themselves. It is up to the manufacturer of the item to perform the necessary testing.

Unfortunately, at this time, component testing is not allowed. Say for example I use 10 different fabrics (for me it's in the hundreds), and 15 different kinds of buttons, and 2 different zippers, and 1 kind of snap. I couldn't just take one of each and have each tested on its own. No, I would have to take hours of my time, sew each product as I do now, and submit it for testing. Well folks, there goes half my inventory right there, not to mention my time. The testing is destructive, so I wouldn't even get the original dress back. It just isn't feasible for us as micro-producers to do the testing in this way, or any manufacturer for that matter. The way the law is written it isn't possible to spread the cost of the testing out among several different styles because you have to test by unit, or each style.

In addition, while the government has ruled that phthalate content testing will not be retroactive from February 10th, 2009, lead testing will be. That means that my current stock becomes illegal to sell past February 10th, unless I submit my dresses to the necessary tests. Regarding the testing, it will cost anywhere between $100-200 at the current rate, and these rates are likely to go up as more manufacturers realize that they must get these tests performed by the deadline. There are only 14 labs that are certified in the U.S. to do this kind of testing. Do you know anyone who can afford a $200 jumper? I know I don't. Especially in the current economic state of our country.

It has taken me years to build up my wonderful fabric stash, and the thought of not being able to do what I love is simply heartbreaking. Of course the impetus for the new regulations stemmed from the fiasco of the imported toys from China last year and all of the ensuing recalls. Of course I want to protect our children from unsafe products, but unfortunately this law has gone way too far in its scope. The handmade movement was one of the results from parents wanting to purchase items produced in the U.S. by people who could be their neighbors and friends. Now our government has seen fit to take one more choice away from U.S. consumers and forced them back to products manufactured abroad, and large manufacturers who will have an easier time spreading the costs of testing over a larger product line.

But even the large manufacturers are not without their dilemmas. In a letter dated November 14th, 2008 to Ms. Cheryl Falvey, General Counsel to the CPSC, Mr. Richard Woldenberg, chairman of an educational toy company, stated that Walmart had informed its suppliers of children's products that it intends to return all merchandise regardless of age, that cannot be proven to comply with the new standards. Two other major retailers are rumored to have taken a similar position. If this is the case, you will absolutely see widespread corporate bankruptcies.

So here is what you can do. I am urging everyone to write to their legislators and call if you can, to tell them that you want this law amended or repealed to protect artisans and craftspeople who are simply trying to pay their mortgages and support their families. Write to tell them that you want a choice in the marketplace, and don't want to buy only mass produced items for your children. While everyone wants safe products, I am urging you to let them know that they are only hurting American families who are trying to do the right thing in the first place. I implore you to let them know that they should not be regulating things like fabric that have very little to no lead in them in the first place.


Here are some helpful links for more information:
http://www.fashion-incubator.com (The forum regarding the CPSIA has been opened to the public)
http://www.nationalbankruptcyday.com

If you want to try to interpet the law yourself here are some of the goverment links :
A copy of the actual law as it stands today: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpsia.pdf
The general CPSIA website : http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html
Standard Operating Procedure for Determining Total Lead : http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/CPSC-CH-E1001-08.pdf
Original CPSIA FAQs http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/faq.html#educational
Most recent updates to FAQs : http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/newfaqs.pdf
How CSPIA effects exsisting inventory & by extension vintage, resale, & recycling of children's items :
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/317.pdf

Here's links to write your district's congressperson and senate represenatives as long as your still a registered voter. Otherwise write directly to the CPSIA voicing your concern.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/newleg.aspx

Thanks for doing all you can.