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)
Here's a letter I wrote to my rep:
Dear Mr. Gutierrez,
I am writing to urge you to consider taking action to change how the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is being implemented.
As it stands, it will require ALL clothing or toys that might be sold to children to be tested at a cost of thousands of dollars per product.
The problem occurred with mass market toys being imported from China. Certainly, all toys that are to be imported from China and all Chinese toys that are in the retail channel should be tested for Lead and Phalates.
But to force ALL toys and clothing to be tested would have many negative side effects.
For one, it would effectively shut down thrift store sales of clothing and toys, which would make it that much more difficult for lower income families to purchase them in these tough economic times. Massive amounts of clothing and toys will be taken to the landfill, at great environmental cost.
Secondly, it would make it difficult for individuals to sell their nearly new clothing that their children have outgrown.
And thirdly, it would virtually shut down ALL small domestic production of toys and clothing. Small producers cannot afford thousands of dollars in testing fees.
This last effect would hurt many Americans who are struggling to get by with their hard work and entrepreneurism.
Ironically, it would have the inadvertent effect of increasing demand for Chinese imports, because consumers would be forced to buy them when their local producers close shop. This may cause some people to be exposed to low quality, chemically laden imports who otherwise might not be!
I urge you to consider revising the legislation to make it more lenient, or contacting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to change their interpretation. This law should ONLY cover new imported goods from exporters, such as China, that have been shown to be a risk for Lead and Phlalates. At the very least, goods that have already been sold at retail should be exempted, as should small producers and resale shops.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Chicago, IL
]]>People always assume that congress is riding in on a white horse to save the consumer or the little guy with legislation just because thats what congress tends to say. The problem is that large companies hold a lot more sway than the average voter, so they use regulation to prevent competition. People need to understand that regulations isn't all bad or all good, it's an incredibly mixed bag and should be minimized in some places, removed in others, and kept/expanded other places still.
]]>@pandroid: It applies to anything that could conceivably be used for children.
]]>@ezacharyk: The testing centers are private, not government run. They can set the price at whatever they want--and it's high.
]]>@G99: There are only a handful of companies who currently have the labs to do the testing required (the law also will require all clothing for 12 and under to be tested, as well), and the testing is quite expensive because it wasn't in extremely high demand previously, and mostly because they can charge that much and get away with it.
]]>@Crim Law Geek: Who the hell are you that you have $20,000+ to drop on unnecessary testing?
]]>This law also applies to children's clothing. If you make a blanket, or sweater, or even just a bib for a kid and sell it (on etsy, at a craft fair, at a yard sale), you MUST have it tested. The whole law is ridiculous.
]]>The law needs to be looked at.
]]>Way to go US Government. Step in there and protect us from ourselves. Yeah!!!
]]>Won't work. Regardless of how anyone labels these products, determining whether or not the product is intended for children under 12 is the sole right & responsibility of the CPSIA. If they think your product is aimed at children 12 or under, you're required to comply or face fines.
]]>We are going to run into problems when we start making exceptions to the law. If we say that handmade are exempt then WallyMart will go out and just stick "handmade" stickers on all their toys. Since at some point it is touched by a hand.
Now if we go by batch codes of all materials we as the tax payers will have to pay for the oversight to test each batch and test the final products to ensure that they came from the batches they said they came from.
We can always no import toys from China but really that would just mean they would make all the toy parts there and assemble in Mexico or heck Michigan and sell as made in the US and now bypassed the regulations.
]]>As for food, drinks, and medicine, it is truly an at your own risk sort of situation. There are no hygienic standards in restaurants whatsoever, much less soap in the bathrooms. Food products often contain dangerous additives such as melamine, which was extremely widespread in all levels of food production, among other things. Even fresh fruits and vegetables have been treated with melamine (it also a pesticide!) DDT, and nightsoil.
As for medicine? There is absolutely no guarantee what you is in the box is anything remotely similar to what you need to take. The counterfeiting industry runs completely rampant.
So, count your blessings. Government regulation is not all bad, although in this case it certainly seems to be laid on too thick.
@katylostherart: Those pollutions are done intentionally.
]]>It is important to realize that nothing except the limits of lead has changed. The old regulations required that manufacturers assure that paint was below acceptable limits. The only way to do this is through testing. Now the regulations simply mandate testing by accredited laboratories (many of the same labs that were testing before the new rule) and test for the new lower limits.
]]>DON'T BUY CHEAP SHIT FROM CHINA!
]]>SHOCK!
]]>@Eyebrows McGee: It is possible that the person your friend had to deal with was a couple bricks shy of a load. Most states can easily create a title and register a handmade trailer OR a hand-built kit car. Most of the rural high schools in my area have ag classes that build a trailer or two every year to teach the students how to weld. The school isn't a licenced trailer dealership but those trailers have no problem being registered.
]]>What ELSE do these unwatched, undisciplined kids put in their mouths?
]]>@oldtaku: Yes. It's a popular misconception that big businesses are opposed to govt. regulation. Big businesses help write the regulations to discourage competition!
Blank stares.
I've never really had trouble with the DMV, but this whole comedy of errors was like every awful DMV story rolled into one hilarious ball.
]]>That's WHY toys are labeled as choking hazards and WHY various toxic substances are so much more dangerous in children's toys. It is simply impossible to keep things out of children's mouths.
(Moreover, it's developmentally important for them to stick things in their mouths. The only way you could stop it is to hog-tie them until they're about 8, and you'd be seriously impeding brain development by not letting them chew on basically everything they came across. Small children explore new objects with their mouths as much as with their hands and eyes.)
]]>Of course, all laws have unintended consequences, RoHS's is that non-leaded solder causes reliability problems, so don't expect 2007 and later-era electronics to last as long.
]]>The real problem is that toys manufactured in China (or other third-world countries) can be manufactured using components that are illegal in the US (like lead paint). But if you're buying these components in the US, Canada, or the EU, many of them will have already undergone testing and already be compliant with US law.
I see no reason that small toymakers should be able to label a painted wooden soldier with a tag that says "Wood from here, batch #4752, untreated; Paint from PaintCo, batch #5276, bright magenta, lead-free."
Now, Uncle Joe cutting down trees in the wood and making toy soldiers by hand is still going to have a wood-origin problem, but Uncle Joe can probably sell them as collectibles.
Aside, a friend of mine built a boat from scratch in his backyard, and when he went to register is with the state, the state got their panties in a major twist because he "refused" to tell them where he'd bought the boat or provide them with the title. He explained over and over he'd BUILT it, but they kept insisting boats had to COME FROM somewhere, and that somewhere wasn't PEOPLE, it was CORPORATIONS. I think this is another symptom of that disease, that we run large parts of our regulatory economy for the convenience of large corporations, without thinking about the fact that small makers and individuals DO still exist and these regulations affect them as well. I don't think it's right to penalize them by subjecting them to a regulatory scheme intended for large multinational corporations. (Similar problem with USDA organic certification/slaughterhouses and small farms; they're really only set up to deal with Big Ag.)
]]>CPSC should pass some rules exempting certain products and manufacturing processes from this. The law sets it up so this is possible. In the first part of the law there's an allowance for this - section (b): Exclusion of Certain Materials Or Products. Here it is exactly:
(1) CERTAIN PRODUCTS OR MATERIALS.-The Commission
may, by regulation, exclude a specific product or material from the prohibition in subsection (a) if the Commission, after notice and a hearing, determines on the basis of the best-available, objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that lead in such
product or material will neither-
(A) result in the absorption of any lead into the human
body, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of such product by a child, including swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other children's activities, and the aging of the product; nor
(B) have any other adverse impact on public health
or safety.
The law docketed under OSHA-2008-0032 (search in regulations.gov)
The toy companies should petition the CPSC (and OSHA?) for exemption from this regulation, and then get their supporters to comment on the petition.
The rest of the law looks very good. I like that they toughened up the standards on lead ppm. I'm not totally following the crib regulations, but I do like the creation of a database for hazards.
Bottom line: The law is a start. CPSC should modify regulations in accordance with any forthcoming public petitions.
Also: There are special protections for small businesses under federal law. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that all proposed regulations assess what their impact will be on small businesses. If it will be significant, the regulators have to meet with a panel of small businesspeople to determine how the impact can be lessened. So their concerns can carry a lot of weight in the final rule.
/not a lawyer
]]>This isn't 100% verified, but it has a lot of small business thinking that in February they will have to close shop.
]]>I've heard from a family member (who sews items for adults) that the lead testing applies to everything, not just toys or children's items. So expect small manufacturers of all kinds to go out of business. February 10th is being called national bankruptcy day.
]]>@ezacharyk: How is that common sense? If it costs $XX dollars for a tech to run an XRF over a product, why is the tech's work any harder or easier based on how large your company is?
I think the costs they quoted might be a bit inflated, but it seems like there's a base price for testing. The fact that for Mattel, etc the tests are .1% of their cost and for a small company it could be 50% is unfortunate.
]]>The CPSC also specified a list of approved laboratories, so makers can't shop around. They HAVE to use (mostly overseas) labs.
]]>@oldtaku: Sometimes, but in other cases the tests just cost that much - with no added reg fees or anything.
If small companies can work together and lower the costs (like submit several companies' products together for testing, or get raw materials tested before they all use them in their own products), they could bring the price down (maybe). But these are expensive tests, and I can't see how they could change ther regulations to make them more affordable (other thane excluding certain classes of toys).
]]>@Squot: Yes - but they should have figured out how to make certain manufacturing processes exempt from regulation.
]]>Yup our gov't at work
]]>guarantee you this law was crafted entirely by the bigger toy company lobbyists.
]]>Of course, this is assuming that the materials don't interact chemically to produce powerful mutagens to turn children into crab people.
]]>Maybe this testing will end up being done like the FDA does with drugs. Millions of dollars will be spent in testing to approve new toys. We all know how well that works. Once given the seal of safety by the government, drugs are ALWAYS safe and are NEVER recalled, right?
The government has a pretty crappy track record of keeping us safe, so I don't know why we'd trust them again to protect us.
]]>Read artists' advocate sites.
]]>Toymakers CAN'T get tested by competent labs not on that list.
]]>Looking at the CPSA itself, the only ray of light I can see so far is in Section 20 (b):
"In determining the amount of any penalty to be sought upon commencing an action seeking to assess a penalty for a violation of section 19(a), the Commission shall consider the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, including the nature of the product defect, the severity of the risk of injury, the occurrence of
absence of injury, the number of defective products distributed, the appropriateness of such penalty in relation to the size of the business of the person charged, including how to mitigate undue adverse economic impacts on small businesses, and such other factors as appropriate. "
This implies to me, at least, that the extremely open language of the statute is intended to make it apply to all, and it's in the assessment of penalty phase that the grace for small domestic business appears. This means that *if* there's a scandal involving a small producer, they can assess a punitive amount, but until then, they don't *have* to.
Practically speaking, this (pragmatically) means that small producers can probably continue as usual. It ain't great, though. It'd be nice for there to have been some sort of scaled frame to it -- one level for major manufacturers, one for small business -- but I understand why one would want to go with this wide-open format.
An awful lot of uncertainty for an awful lot of small businesses, though...
]]>If your total output per year is small, your cost to test should be small as well. So much for common sense.
]]>Seems to me like it's restoring a little balance back into the overly restrictive copyright law in the US.
]]>how bout we take care of air pollutants and sewage runoff into our water supply and oceans first?
]]>@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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>But seriously, with a label like that, who's gonna buy it for their little specials? No one I think.
]]>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.
]]>Done.
]]>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.
]]>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?
]]>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...
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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!
]]>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.
]]>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?)
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>...
*headdesk*
]]>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.
]]>So, I'm actually for testing for all, personally - assuming that it's legistlated to be /actually affordable/ to everyone. :(
]]>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.
]]>This is pretty ridiculous.. these are probably the only toys you can trust anyway...
]]>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?
]]>