Toymakers and resellers raise concerns over new safety regulations

Most new regulations stir up contention from some front or another, and we didn't expect the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act to be any different. Last week, several groups voiced concern, confusion, and complaints about the projected effect the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) might have on small businesses.

The CPSIA, which was signed into law in August 2008, marks the most significant overhaul of the Consumer Product Safety Commission since its establishment in the 1970s. The legislation effectively bans lead in children's products, requires safety testing of toys and other children's products before they're sold, and increases both the resources and the authority of the CPSC.

On February 10th, a major provision of the CPSIA takes effect, setting limits on the amount of lead that can be used in children’s products. To prove compliance with the new regulations, manufactures must get their products tested and certified by an independent lab, and retailers must make sure that the products they sell meet the new regulations.

Small toymakers and artisans represented by the Handmade Toy Alliance say the cost of that testing may be prohibitively expensive. A similar issue has been voiced by sellers of secondhand goods such as thrift stores and consignment shops, represented by the National Association of Resellers and Thrift Stores who say they have no way of knowing if the products on their shelves contain excessive amounts of lead unless they’re tested. This has prompted deep concern among members of the small-business community, who fear that the new laws will drive them under. Some have dubbed February 10, 2009 as “National Bankruptcy Day.”

Consumers Union, along with a half dozen other public interest groups, has urged federal regulators to immediately provide additional guidance and clarity to help address those concerns. In a letter sent to Acting CPSC Chairwoman Nancy Nord, the groups have pushed the CPSC to inform manufacturers and retailers how to comply with the new legal requirements and to outline what the true cost of testing will be. And we've asked the agency to work with secondhand sellers to keep dangerous products off their shelves while also presenting commonsense solutions for those stores. The CPSC tried to do that in a press release issued last week, but unfortunately we’re not sure the “clarifications” make the new law any clearer.

The CPSC has proposed exempting certain products and materials from their regulations. But many in industry are calling for even broader exemptions that may undermine the goals of the new legislation. While it’s easy to understand the difficulties small businesses face in this time of economic uncertainty, the risk is that the goals of the new legislation will be weakened. Let’s not forget what led to the new regulations in the first place: Almost 30 million unsafe children’s products were recalled last year, and even more the year before that. Many products containing hazardous levels of lead made it onto store shelves and into homes because the CPSC has been so underfunded, understaffed and underpowered that it couldn't do its job. The CPSIA was designed to solve those problems.

The CPSC needs to demonstrate strong leadership to help guide compliance with the new laws. The CPSIA should not be a stumbling block for responsible manufacturers and retailers. The CPSC has the authority and the obligation to see that this important safety legislation does what it was intended to do.

Comments

[Jen]

It makes no sense to have handmade children's products fall under this law as it stands. Currently, I won't be able to sell the items I make because I can't afford to have each piece tested. I make custom, one of a kind items. If the concern is over lead - the raw materials should be tested that I am buying from the fabric store. NOT each individual piece I produce. Since I'm not a "manufacturer", but rather a crafter, I cannot afford this, and nobody would pay the actual costs as a buyer.

The irony is that I can make these things for my own children and friends, but as soon as I sell them, suddenly it is illegal? If the materials are safe to sell to me for my own children, an exception should be made for me to sell them as a small side business.

[Nicolas Martin]

How charmingly coy this essay is. It doesn't mention that Consumers Union was a prominent backer of CPSIA -- along with the usual host of liberal activist groups -- and that it had no objections to passage of the provisions which are set to cause havoc. Ron Paul was the only member of congress to vote against this abomination.

[Catherine Jaime]

While we applaud the intent of the lawmakers and their law, their good intent is not going to keep the consequences of this law from being bad! You mentioned the numerous toys that have been recalled from store shelves in just the last couple of years. But how many of those were made in the U.S. with American materials? And how many of them were imported? My educated guess, based on searching the recall list on the CPSC’s website, is that almost all were imports.

Again, how many of them were books? Are those of us that self-publish flooding the market with unsafe materials? Again, no. Books have not been proven to be a health hazard, and yet the agency is insisting that they be included in the “Children’s products” covered in this law.

And again, what about the home sewn clothes and toys that have been included in this broad legislation? They are not the things being recalled. And yet, they have been swept along to be included in these extensive and expensive testing requirements.

Small businesses have been the back bone of this country since before it even became a country. Have we reached the point in the 21st century that we don’t think we need them anymore?

[spameal]

It is unfortunate that handmade toys have been lumped into, "...Let’s not forget what led to the new regulations in the first place: Almost 30 million unsafe children’s products were recalled last year, and even more the year before that..." The handmade toy industry is what saved Christmas from lead laden toys. They already use safe materials, and now they are being penalized for following the rules. When someone makes a toy by hand, and maybe make 10 of that product, then have to pay $500 to test a $30 toy that there are only 10 of (which is a loss of -$200). But, they used lead free paint and other raw materials that have already been deemed compliant. Now, that artisan is breaking the law if they can't pay to have the product tested even though all the materials put into it are safe. I don't think they 'forgot' about the handmade toy industry, I think they knew what they were doing. Follow the Lobbyist money...

[Jen of babycheeksboutique.com]

Couldn't have said any of this better myself.

Please contact your Congressmen and Senators and tell them that they need to amend and clarify this ill-conceived, feel-good law!

[Eileen]

CPSIA was well intentioned but poorly written.

Many of the cases of imports containing lead that Congress intended to address with this ligislation already violated existing CPSA standards.

Yes, CPSA needed more funds to address safety. Yes, independent testing is good.

I make crocheted, stuffed toys, baby blankets and baby hats. I use yarn and polyester stuffing. No buttons, no plastic eyes, no paint. Since I make them by hand, I obviously don't make that many. I can't afford to spend $300 to $1000 per item to test them.

Are these one of a kind items? Maybe. Each one is made by hand and no two will be identical, but I can make several toys from one skein of yarn. But with the lack of definition from CPSA, I'm afraid I can't sell them anymore.

Could I use natural wool or cotton to make them? Yes, but they would be pretty dull. No color allowed. Would anybody buy them? Probably not.

I just can't take the chance of being charged with a felony.

[Peggie]

This law is so broad that it includes children's clothing, diapers and anything else for a child 12 and under. School books, paper handouts, handmade school items that are sold to raise money are included. Most of these items have little to no chance of having the limits exceeded. The law is too broad and too damaging as written.

It may not be meant to bankrupt, but it will. It is needlessly hurting to many.

[Deb]

Thank you for posting something with some basic facts that are accurate.

The law has generated many more unintended consequences than I'm sure any lawmaker ever intended. While the overall effort to lower lead and phthylates in children's items is honorable and necessary, but this goes way too far.

Narts has issued a press release at http://narts.org/pressrelease.htm

Save Kids Resale also has accurate information http://savekidsresale.com

Business affected by this law as well as consumers concerned about the impact of the law can contact their congressional representative at the SaveKidsResale website.

[bev]

I own a consignment shop and this will effect my business. I also shop resale and dress my children with gently used clothing. 80% of my toys and furniture for my children are recycled.
What testing are they going to do in schools, libararies, and the closest of Congress party's kids if items are deemed "unfit" for me to resale, maybe we should just DUMP it, and fix this economy with all the stuff we will have to rebuy new.

[Mark Riffey]

The children's products industries (such as handmade toys, child/baby furniture, infant/toddler clothing, books, school kits etc) are not interested in undermining the CPSIA for their own gain.

They are interested in complying with a common sense regulation that doesnt bankrupt them. The CPSIA doesnt even come close to being that kind of regulation.

The CPSIA was created to solve problems primarily with the 30 million imported toys created by irresponsible mostly Chinese manufacturers. Had the clearly irresponsible US corporates who imported these items not turned a blind eye to the quality of the toys they were distributing and retailing, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

On one hand, its a good thing. If the law can be made to be palatable to small homemade vendors, theyll have a new ally in their competition against cheaply made imported toys: Quality.

The CPSIA was NOT created in order to bankrupt American handmade toymakers, nor those who create homemade diapers, baby furniture, organic clothing and other items.

In fact, many of those artisans started creating these items BECAUSE of the poor quality of imported products for children and because of allergy concerns that American importers (they are no longer manufacturers) were ignoring.

These artisans created their own market and the CPSIA is poised to take it away from them.

What no one wants to talk about is the trickle down impact of this law. Call your Senator and talk about it and their eyes roll back in their heads. They havent even thought about the trickle down of losing thousands of small home-based businesses.

When 100,000 homemade product businesses in the US fail and when the retailers of those products no longer sell them - what happens to thousands of businesses who sell their raw materials, services and supplies to them?

They lose 100,000 customers. Large customers in many cases. When those businesses lose their stock and trade customers - and in many cases, the ability (because of CPSIA) to sell their raw materials - the job market will be flooded with formerly work-at-home moms who now not only have to find a crappy service job, but will also have to find the money to put their kids in daycare.

Is this what the administration wanted? Yet another generation of parents with poorly paid service jobs slaving away to pay the daycare bill for their latchkey kids?

Thats not what the CPSIA is about.

The CPSIA is about irresponsibility of the CPSC (who the Congress clearly can no longer trust), and the irresponsibility of major children's product manufacturers and importers. The latter two can afford the testing costs. Congress clearly intended to send a message, they simply forgot to think about the small business owner.

For example, the mom whose business makes allergen free natural fabric based baby clothes and employs 4 other moms. They make, sell, package and ship $200,000 worth of clothing. This business will be the one laying off 4 moms and writing off their inventory and supplies that must be discarded on Feb 10.

Step back a little bit, CU. Look at the big picture.

The impact of this law - as written - stretches far beyond just the childrens product industry. Every small business in this country has the potential to be impacted by this law, as written.

Why?

Craftspeople buy shipping. They buy websites. They get accountants. They use graphic artists. They buy bacon, tires, gasoline, clothes and go out to dinner. They do business all over town as business people, not just as consumers.

If you put them all out of business, they do less of those things until they get that "great new job" at WalMart.