Am I the only one that's just completely confused at this point?

[#1]

I thought I had my head around what was going on yesterday. With the new announcements today I'm completely lost again.

http://cpsia-central.ning.com/profiles/blogs/cpsc-votes-to-reject-nam
http://cpsia-central.ning.com/profiles/blogs/court-overturns-cpsc-advisory

1. Does the special requirements for "Lead Paint" apply only to toys that are painted with paint that contains some lead (i.e. are we testing lead-based paint to make sure that it's not got too much lead), or does it apply to any item with any paint on it?

It's been illegal for years now to sell paint in the US that doesn't conform to the older cpsc requirements, so if I'm manufacturing my product in the states I can't even GET paint with high levels of lead in it.

I sell toys that are painted (with upwards of 9 colors of paint!). I can show a certificate from the paint manufacturer that the paint was 3rd party tested (maybe not an "officially approved" test facility yet) and complies to the new law.
I can't tell at this point whether a) I'm required to still have 3rd party testing for my final products now, b) I'm not required to have 3rd party testing yet but will have to in August, or c) I'm not required to now, or August, but probably will at the end of the year if nothing else changes.

2. I sell custom toys. As in, the customer orders it, I make it, it's one of a kind, and I'll never make another. I make it with the same wood and paint I make everything else with, but am I actually expected to get that specific toy tested by a 3rd party before I send it to my customer?

3. Phthalates... how in the world am I supposed to test for phthalates? How am I supposed to know if the nylon or rayon cord I use contains phthalates? The manufacturers don't even know, and I don't think there's an official approved test process for it yet.

4. I recycled crayons. Art products have had strict regulations for years, all of the crayons I use are ASTM-D certified. I can't even THINK of a way to test every single cup of crayon wax I've sorted and melted down, let along testing every single crayon I pour. How on earth would they be tested? Do they have to be?

Furthermore, how the heck am I supposed to put a batch number on a crayon? I make a different batch for every 10 or so crayons, am I supposed to somehow create a batch number for each one? Is putting the date on the crayon box sufficient?

5. Do I have to shut down all manufacture/sale of my children's products come Tuesday? I have no idea at this point! Yesterday I was sure I was okay until the end of this year. I am certain my products contain no lead (even though I can't prove it with official testing yet), and I didn't think the phthalate thing was an issue yet. Today I simply have no idea.

6. The requirements for labelling are confusing me too... I thought at some point I saw a form for what had to be included but I can't find it now. I make blocks, is every block in a set supposed to be labeled with batch number/manufacturer/date, etc, or just the packaging? I can't even figure out for sure what pieces of information have to be there... or do they just have to be with the shipment? (I manufacture and retail)

Any comments would be appreciated.

[Former_Member]

Completely confused. It's too much hassle, the mega toy corporations know it, and the government too. All I wanted to do was make fun safe baby bibs that are cute, colorful, and reusable, and now they ruined it. With all the legal-ese mumbo jumbo, who do you believe? And the threat of other crafters ready to turn you in, it's not worth it.

My bibs ARE safe, the immediate hazy area we are in legally, and the cost to prove it is just rediculous. So even though the 'stay' is in, I'm out as of the 10th where baby stuff is concerned.

[bobbinalong]

Don't you begin to wonder if that is the whole point. Scare us enough and we will just go away.

The part that annoys me the very most is one day you "find something" in this law that applies to us, and tomorrow, it changes. Dates seem to change or are very vague. We shouldn't have to search for what this law says. The CPSC and Congress have enough money to put the right information out there. I think the whole point is creating a vagueness so that the CPSC can wiggle itself into situations and then pounce.

[Former_Member]

I am just as confused.

[StoryBlox]

I believe my confusion is completely cleared up on the lead paints thing, thanks to PoshDots, who sent me a conversation and pointed a few things out.

http://cpsia-central.ning.com/forum/topics/painted-craft-items-small

Unless someone points out a mistake in my readings this will become my official policy regarding whether my items fall under the lead-paint testing requirements (meaning a resounding no). Since my products conform, and do not fall under the special testing category, this means I'll have the extra year, like everyone else, before third party testing is required (and hopefully they'll make the laws more reasonable in the meantime).

[krtwood]

I don't think that works. If you aren't using it for art then it isn't artists' paint.

[StoryBlox]

And, this is how they define art materials...

The term "art material" includes "any substance marketed or represented by the producer or repackager as suitable for use in any phase of the creation of any work of visual or graphic art of any medium".
The Commission believes that under the broad statutory definition of "art material" three general categories can be seen:
1. Those products which actually become a component of the work of visual or graphic art, such as paint, canvas, inks, crayons, chalk, solder, brazing rods, flux, paper, clay, stone, thread, cloth, and photographic film.
2. Those products which are closely and intimately associated with the creation of the final work of art, such as brush cleaners, solvents, ceramic kilns, brushes, silk screens, molds or mold making material, and photo developing chemicals.
3. Those tools, implements, and furniture that are used in the process of the creation of a work of art, but do not become part of the work of art. Examples are drafting tables and chairs, easels, picture frames, canvas stretchers, potter's wheels, hammers, chisels, and air pumps for air brushes.

[krtwood]

Mattel could just have all their paint suppliers put "craft paint" on the label on the paint they supply and then have as much lead on their toys as they want, which would not fly.

[StoryBlox]

That's simply not true, it's how the paint is marketed not what label is on it.

[krtwood]

You aren't using it for art, you're using it for toys.

[StoryBlox]

It doesn't matter. The reason that the excemption EXISTS in that law in the first place is because there are ALREADY strict standards on the makers of art supplies that were in place well before saction 16 was written.

http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/5016.html

[StoryBlox]

The reason large manufacturers do not use craft paints/art paints in their productions is because the additional testing the craft suppliers have to submit to (read pay for) makes the cost of those paints much higher than commercial-grade paints.

[krtwood]

The lead ban was in 1978 and the Labeling of Hazardous Art Materials was in 1988.

[Former_Member]

So then where does art for kids fall? My products aren't "toys" but they are for children.

[krtwood]

From a common sense standpoint you're both fine, the paint is already tested. This is just one of those things the CPSC has done a terrible job of making clear. If it's fine to be using those paints without more testing then why are they just saying you have to test everything painted without following it up with unless it says it conforms to ASTM D-4236.

[Former_Member]

Thanks krtwood. Everyone has been very helpful.

[StoryBlox]

I think this is an issue of ambiguous terms. The actual text of the law says it applies to items painted with or containing lead paint. The faq writeups and short papers based on the law that were meant to put things in laymens terms just said "painted items" ...

I like to base my final decisions on an actual reading of the laws themselves, and I think combining the definition of artist/craft paints that's in 16 itself with the exemption in 16 and the changes made to 16 by the new legislation makes it clear that it does not apply to craft paints. Unless I see something that I missed that shows where that exemption is struck out by the new law, I think it still stands.

And as you said, common sense agrees with that besides.

btw, krt, your items are amazing! do you do all the woodworking yourself?

[krtwood]

The trouble is that if you aren't a lawyer you may not necessarily interpret the law correctly. It doesn't make any sense that you only have to test something that you already know is painted with lead paint and therefore wouldn't pass the test.

This was the first I heard of the Labeling of Hazardous Art Materials law and I've been following this all pretty closely. It's a legal scavenger hunt, and every time they put something out that is supposed to clear things up it just confuses it even more.

'Paint' includes any surface coating, like clear wood finishes. But there's a whole FDA regulation for food safe coatings, and if it's safe to prepare food with and eat off that ought to be good enough for kids to play with, and it shouldn't take 6 months or another year for the CPSC to figure that out.

And thank you! Yep, I have a little help from the power tools though :)