Posted by Janelle Sorensen  on  01/07  at  07:40 PM

I know a lot of people are Tweeting about this call on Twitter. How come no one’s asking questions in advance?

Posted by Cynthia Toy  on  01/08  at  04:26 PM

I’m wondering how to test one of a kind, artisan made, stuffed animals and dolls. The testing ,as I understand it, destroys the product so how can an artist comply?
Cynthia

Posted by Sommer-Green and Clean Mom  on  01/09  at  07:10 AM

Janelle, I have a question a few really.
1.  I’ve had some comments on my blog from a reader that insists that “we” got what we asked for. We asked for tighter government control and now we want to revoke it. I’m curious what your response might be.
2.  Alicia, from The Soft Landing makes a good point here, http://thesoftlanding.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/should-toys-made-in-the-usa-canada-and-europe-be-exempt-from-lead-and-phthalate-testing/ and I’m wondering if this is such a safe idea to have across the board exemptions?
3.  Is the third party testing expensive?
4.  How will the government possibly monitor this?
5.  In February when the legislation goes through, how will this information reach people in layman terms to explain things to them. It seems confusing now.
I have more questions but I’ll stop here! LOL! Thanks Janelle. My readers are buzzing!

Posted by emily werner  on  01/10  at  09:07 PM

* I would like to know if anyone is aware of Handmade being considered for exemption? How about not having to pay for lab fees?
* I am wondering if in addition to other natural materials already considered for exemption, we could also add hemp and bamboo?
* Really? Do cloth diapers contain lead? No one wants a heavier diaper. ;o)

Posted by kate  on  01/13  at  02:26 AM

First of all, let me start by saying that I am so concerned about safety that I actually had my property tested by xray for lead.  Tracking down a certified lead tester who uses a $10,000 machine is tough, but I managed.
Now, secondly, as far as I read, the single most prevalent way that children are exposed to lead (other than items that they would certainly put in their mouth such as pacifiers and teething toys) is lead paint.  And, the main way is by the lead dust that accumulates constantly in the dust over the years).  So, most kids are getting exposed that way, and many many homes have lead in the paint.
What I do as a mom is that I am up-to-date with recalls AND I monitor my child and have never, ever let her put a toy in her mouth.  Plus, I wash her hands before she eats.  Plus, I keep to date with recalls.  I have bought lots of used products but checked each on the CPSC site before buying.
My question is this:  Food stores don’t have to test their food.  It’s up to the FDA to do that.  So, why is this industry placing the burden on the stores?
Another question:  How will this solve the problem when children touch lots of things in the house that are not children’s products?  Example, she’ll touch my coat, a knick-knack, etc. etc.
Another question:  Why doesn’t the government start an FDA for children’s products?  They can random sample products and then impose fines or bans on companies that MANUFACTURE.  It is they who must bear the burden, and this should actually apply not just to children’s products but all products.  If a person makes handicrafts with a yarn and it has lead and they sell it, then the liable one should be the manufacturer of the yarn.
Another question:  Why doesn’t the government place the burden on new items but come up with a more creative solution for used or old items that wouldn’t make this an environmental disaster.  There are already laws in place and they are being broken by mainly Chinese companies, yet nothing seems to be done to punish them.  A creative solution for used or old products would be to train resale people to use the CPSC site and to require them (and other stores) to post information about lead, and to allow a refund on any item that a person buys that is later found to be on the CPSC site as being recalled for lead (or any other reason).  This refund should extend to new or used items indefinitely.  Also, why not offer a small reward to anyone that discovers that an item previously unknown to have lead has it (to encourage reporting)?  There are many other creative solutions, but this legislation doesn’t seem to be the right one.  I predict that the rotten companies that do bad will continue to do so, and the small businesses and ebayers will have to dump all their perfectly good stuff into the garbage dumpsters.  And, no one will even want to pass items onto friends for fear of lawsuits or fines.  What a waste of good stuff.  This will make the government people look like they care, but will create a dirtier environment that these children will have to live in (sorry the post is long, but I hope that it helps with the thought process on this) by having everything in the landfill (and everyone knows that half of what we own is children’s stuff).

Posted by Olivia Bada  on  01/13  at  01:06 PM

Janelle,
Thank you for setting up this call.  Here are some questions:
I am confused - I have read that if you make “one of a kinds” they are except but if you make say 10 of a kind - then you must have them tested?  Is this correct?  I make sock monkeys and often make a dozen or so of each pattern of sock. 
Also, I make burp cloths using fabric from the fabric store…would these need to be tested…again I only make a limited number of each type of fabric so testing would not be economical
Finally the tracing and tracking…how is this supposed to work - does every item need a different number or can you have the same number for every like item -  for example a number for sock monkeys, for burp cloths etc…
Thank you
Olivia

Posted by funfelt  on  01/14  at  02:16 PM

My question has to do with products that do not contain lead or phthalates (had them tested once, let’s say). Can we still sell without repetitive testing?
The way I understand it is if an item is found to have lead/phthalates then the manufacturer/retailer is liable. But if they do not contain them, there is no risk, so no need for repeated testing, issuing GCCs, etc. for completely non-toxic items. If the government wants to investigate such an item, they will find nothing.

Posted by karie  on  01/15  at  01:21 AM

Hi Janelle, I attended a seminar on CPSIA today and everyone’s general assumption seems to be that the cost of testing is so prohibitive it’s going to bankrupt small manufacturers. Yet it’s my understanding from a very knowledgeable manufacturer that testing is relatively inexpensive, as low at $75 per item. The attorney giving the seminar today couldn’t answer any questions relating to the cost of testing. Can you?

Posted by Cynthia  on  01/15  at  09:45 AM

CPSC Spokeswoman Chastises ‘Mommy-Bloggers’ On TV

Did you see the video from Baltimore Channel 11 where, for the first time someone from CPSC is interviewed on air? Yep. She disparages ‘mommy-bloggers’ for spreading ‘misinformation’ on the internet! Do you believe this? (Of course, the poor sacrificial lamb has already resigned, her last day is tomorrow) Gee, why do you think they picked her to go on camera?

There is a closed door Congressional Staffer meeting tomorrow about CPSIA. Today and tomorrow would be a REALLY good day to CALL, email and FAX everyone in congress you can think of as well as the CPSC.

We would also appreciate you continuing to spread the word to go to http://www.savekidsresale and Click! to vote (the petition has over 70,000 signatures) as we intend to print out all 500 pages and distribute it to Congressional members tomorrow. As you know, the CPSC has done it’s best to quell the uproar our little corner of this devil in diapers that is CPSIA by their infamous ‘Press Release’.

Thanks so much!  Here’s the video http://savekidsresale.squarespace.com/recent-news-stories-video/

Posted by Marian  on  01/15  at  01:23 PM

My question is for an item like a ceramic hand made “keepsake” plate that is not intended to be used for a child under 12 (not for eating with etc.), but as a keepsake/display item that would have the child’s name,birth date and maybe some other info on the child.  It’s a memento about the child.  Is something like this going need to be tested?
Thanks in advance!
Marian

Posted by Sonia  on  01/15  at  02:52 PM

I have a couple of questions:
-Where do we find accredited 3rd party labs to test after August 2009?
-Is the CPSC going to accredit these labs? When do they plan on releasing a list of resources?
-How will these labs deal with the load of inquiries and processing?
-What are the estimated costs for lab testing? From what I understand it is extreme.
-What is the length of time associated with repealing a law of this nature?

Posted by Danielle  on  01/15  at  03:13 PM

Thanks so much for setting up this call.  I have a few questions.  I design and manufacture diaper bags, diaper clutches and blankets.
1. I’ve been told that I may only need to test the items that would touch the baby - blanket and changing pad - not the actual bag.  Is this correct?
2. I attend the ABC kids show every year.  Do you think that CSPC would come to check up on everyone?
3.  I’m confused about test for leads v phthalates.  Do you have to test for both?

Posted by Jonathan  on  01/15  at  03:59 PM

This call will be great.  I’m becoming a member of NARTS (as soon as sales pick up a bit :)) and have been following up on this issue quite a bit with Kate and Too Good to be Threw as a children’s resale store.  For now, I’m taking the CPSC at their word about “good judgment”, but also joining others and working to get this law fixed for both resale and all the cottage manufacturers, really any true US manufacturer. 

I have 2 lines of questions.  First, with durable goods.  Are the standards mentioned in the law retroactive as well, especially with respect to cribs?  In other words, how am I supposed to handle cribs for the next couple of years?  And all of these durable goods, it seems that there are different standards for items that can be placed in a mouth vs. licked.  Help me understand that as far as where (potentially) I should draw the line. 

The other is are there examples of GCC’s out there for different types of products, so as they start matriculating into secondary markets, we know what to look for?  I know the content is somewhat clear in the law, but the format is not.

Posted by Sara  on  01/15  at  04:14 PM

Will the podcast be posted here?  If not, could you provide a link?

Posted by David M./ Sprig Toys  on  01/15  at  04:49 PM

I manage the testing for our toy company, so have some experience with these laws.  There are 3rd party testing labs accredited by the CPSC.  Testing costs vary but can be a few hundred dollars to a few thousand.  I’ve seen mention on our toy industry magazine that CPSC has exempted natural materials from testing:
http://www.playthings.com/article/CA6628695.html?q=cpsia
There was a letter to the editor in our local paper asking for public to write CPSC to exempt resellers from these rules as they can check if toys were recalled in past and should use that as their guide.  I guess my only concern is that these recalls were voluntary based on the company, so its no indication that you’re buying a safe toy just because it was never recalled. 

The main criteria at this point is nothing should be on the toy shelf after Feb 10 that has lead content since it is seen as being a danger to a child.  Phthalates are considered under consideration, so toys on shelf may still contain phthalates but manufacturers should not be producing toys with the materials after this date.  Typically the bright reds, yellows, etc. have contained lead- as a reseller I would get some understanding for where lead has typically been used and stay away from toys that might have these characteristics.

Posted by MD  on  01/15  at  04:55 PM

What about an artist who wants to buy pre-made t-shirts from a wholesaler to print a design on. The shirt would have already been tested by the manufacturer.

Posted by Kathleen Fasanella  on  01/15  at  04:58 PM

On twitter, someone asked for specifics on the RN number requirement from the FTC. The link for that is here: http://bit.ly/3A5IsV

Posted by Olivia Bada  on  01/15  at  06:20 PM

Hi Janelle
I was on the call today and though it was informative, it was utterly depressing.  I listened to several panel members who felt crafters and small manufacturers should be held to the same testing standards as big toy and clothing manufacturers. I heard their arguments and agree that toys and clothing for children should be safe.  Also, I appreciate that one of them is doing independent testing for small manufacturers.  However after hearing the panel I am pretty sure that as a small manufacturer and crafter I will have to shut down if this law goes into effect.  Even with “low” priced testing available I could not afford it.  I make very few sock monkeys that are alike.  And I do this by choice.  I want a unique product and so do my customers - if they want mass produced they can shop at Target and Wal-Mart.  But if they want handmade, unique, American-made products for their kids after Feb 10th where will they go?  What about craft fairs - will there no longer be children’s items at craft fairs. The artistry and innovation that comes out of the craft industry is worth saving and protecting. This legislation is setting up even the smallest of businesses to become little mass producers.  For instance I have started looking into just ordering one or two socks from a mill and only making two versions of my sock monkeys so that I can complete all of the toy tests…but then they will no longer be unique and I lose my biggest selling point. Why would anyone buy from me when they could go buy a mass produced sock monkey at Target for $15.  Also, what if I pick the wrong two types of socks…maybe I picked blue and red and people wanted pink and green this year - now I have tons of pairs of socks to make sock monkeys no one wants.  There has to be some room to let small companies test the market with new products so that they can figure out what sells. I have a patent pending product (Bada Burp) – should I spend the money to get it patented when now I cannot continue to test the market with small runs at local shows, boutiques and online.  The US patent office understands the importance of the first year of a new product – that is why they created the patent-pending status – so that manufacturers could try selling the product – see what sells, make improvements and changes before submitting the final patent.  The toy testing process eliminates my ability to test the market and make changes to my product because then I will have to come up with the money to retest and relabel.  The whole craft cottage industry is where companies are born - once people have a chance to see what the consumer buys - what socks or fabrics they like - then they can grow and sure if they want to become a bigger company and then look at creating a “line” of products – then they can test them without worrying if the products will sell – because by then they have tested the market.  But to ask me to test every sock monkey for lead?...I think asking that the socks are not made with dyes that contain lead is the route to go down.  If components were safe then the crafters would be free to do what they do best - create new innovative, unique, products for the market place.  Fabric I buy from the fabric store should be lead free.  It makes no sense for me to test a burp cloth I made from an Alexander Henry fabric (for example) when I know that there are at least 10 other sellers on Etsy.com using the same fabric for burp cloths that are now going to have to test their burp cloths.  This redundancy in testing is not “green” it is wasteful and expensive and does not make the end product any safer.  If congress wants to protect children from the small crafter they should not allow products that small crafters use in their toys and clothing to contain lead in the first place.  The burden should be on the component manufacturer not on the toy and clothing maker.  It does not make sense.  By the time I purchase the fabric, thread, stuffing, socks etc and assemble the product I have already spent my money and labor - then I find out it does not pass the toy test? That seems like the steps are out of order.  We all want safe products for our kids but we need to figure out the most logical approach to achieving this goal.  Testing should be done at the start of the process not the end.  Let creativity and innovation continue by allowing people to create small companies that create great products.  We do not need to turn everyone, and every company - big or small into mass consumers and producers of one or two products.  And we definitely do not want to end the great tradition of American crafts.
Thank you
Olivia

Posted by Donna  on  01/16  at  01:42 AM

For those who do no know… according to the law with the way it is now written.. ANY “finished” product has to be tested for TOTAL lead content.  What that means is that it doesn’t matter if the company you bought the zipper tested, and the button mfg tested and the fabric has been tested.  If you put these items together to make a “finished” product..it has to be tested as well.  Total Lead number for the finished product is what they want.  Also unless I’m mistaken I understood that yes…some natural products have been exempted but they have to “remain” natural.  No dye, color, paint, nothing can be added to it or it changes the physical make up of that product and anything added to it could contain lead and should be tested.  If you make an item in three colors each color product has to be tested, even if it’s identical except the color.  If you make something in a different size..each size has to be tested. 
Basically in a nutshell..if you are a craftsman and even if you make a one of a kind item..just one…then something different for another customer…just one.. it doesn’t matter.  In the eyes of the new law you are now considered a Manufacturer ...and no matter how small or large you are ..the law applies the same to everyone. 
I’m an online retailer and some items I make myself while most of what I offer is pre-made by someone else or manufactured by a large company.
I’m having a hard time getting responses for the concerns I’ve submitted to my suppliers.  I have a funny feeling I’ve even had to enlighten them on the problem.  Most seem to think when I inquired it was in reference to section 105 of the law and they shot me a quick response.  When I told them I was concerned about section 101 & 102 of the law one of them said “what’s that?”.  I still have yet to hear back from many of them.

Posted by marian  on  01/16  at  12:08 PM

Thanks again for doing this call!  Looking forward to next weeks.

Posted by Brian  on  01/22  at  06:01 PM

Wow, great post, I am happy to hear the CPSC is doing so much to protect our kids.

Posted by olivia  on  01/26  at  09:28 AM

Hi Janelle,
This is an awesome panel! When will you be having your next monthly call? Thanks, Olivia

Posted by janelle  on  01/26  at  12:00 PM

Olivia - It looks like we will be doing two calls in February as well - both focused on the Kid Safe Chemicals Act that will soon be introduced to congress. We haven’t set dates yet, but I’ll be sure to post when we do. Thanks for participating!