Art Prints and Testing (CPSIA). Anyone get an estimate or do testing yet?

[#1]

I posted in another thread that I tried to get an estimate for testing on my archival cotton rag and 8 pigment inks (Epson).
His response was this:

"I am in receipt of your request and question regarding testing of the print materials. You are fortunate in that print; from what I am able to find out, is not included in the regulation for the lead base paint required testing and certification. You may want to do some further research on this, but this is what I am being told.

One reason being the expense of separation on materials when textiles are died, or colored. It gets very expensive to separate and test those items of that nature.

Please feel free to call me with any questions, concerns on this."

Now, I have not ever seen that prints are not included. What I AM hearing is that EVERYTHING is included (minus possibly OOAK and materials that are known to be clear). I think in the beginning there was some hope because they are wall hangings, but that has since changed.

My concerns are twofold:

First, can prints be tested for a reasonable fee?

Second, does pigment ink contain lead? It's reasonable to suspect it DOES because many paint pigments contain heavy metals (and I avoid using them because of this).

I don't want to waste money having my art prints tested only to be told they don't pass and I'm out $$ in more ways than one. I did put in a call to Epson and they referred me to the MSDS but clearly had no other answers since pigment mixtures are proprietary information and the FDA doesn't require disclosure.

Have you gotten your prints tested yet?

[Former_Member]

UPDATE AGAIN:
I wrote and called Epson and they told me that their inks do not contain lead, which is good news if I have them tested.
As the law is written, I would have to get a new test done each time I change inks.

[chichiboulie]

Constant - I use Epson as well so that's good info. But I think at some point you'd still have to have your prints tested as you're assembling materials into something else. And yes, every time you open a new ink catridge, it needs to be tested from what I understand.

My mind is still boggled and the complete and utter ignorance of the elected officials. Did ANYONE take the time to read this through or think of its ramifications? Doesn't look like it.

[Faeorain]

So where do I find the exact text in the law that states fine art requires testing? I would need to see that.

It doesn't even make sense, because many oil paints and some acrylic are toxic with some metals which are more dangerous than lead, but are labeled as such. They are only toxic if ingested, absorbed through the skin when wet, or if used for long periods in an area that is not well ventilated. Most painters take proper precaution when using them. They are fine to touch when dry, however if someone was to try to eat a dry oil painting containing certain colors, there may be a possibility they will become poisoned..not sure.

Basically, that would mean they would have to outlaw oil paintings. I don't see this happening.

This law supposedly started out as referring to children's items. If we are going apply the law to anything a child 12 or under can reach or get their hands on...that would include just about every single thing in existance.

[Former_Member]

This all so mind-bogglingly stupid it defies description.

If we use supplies which are already labeled as non-toxic, then there is no logical reason why our finished product should magically contain lead. Art isn't reverse alchemy or anything!

I have written letters until my hand fell off, but I am going to keep writing until someone in power goes "hey wow, this is REALLY STUPID" and fixes it, no matter how long it takes.

CPSC: http://www.cpsc.gov/about/contact.html

Congressman Henry Waxman (he has the authority to call a hearing on this and fix it, but he won't, because he is a turd): http://www.henrywaxman.house.gov/contact.htm

Congressman Bobby Rush (Waxman's partner in crime):
http://www.house.gov/rush/

Find your congressman by entering your zipcode on this page:
http://www.house.gov/

Also, contact your local media outlets.

[Former_Member]

Thank you for all the home work you have done.

[meredithdillman]

I think someone would have to prove to me that my prints were intended only for children.

I did find this yesterday
http://www.toyassociation.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=FAQs4

"Do you believe that test reports will need to be obtained on print goods (books, cards)?
“Printing ink”: is exempted from the lead paint regulations (16 CFR 1303). However the substrate board or paper is still subject to the new lead substrate requirements (unless subsequently determined to be an excepted material by CPSC)."

"Does the ink exception on lead paint apply to screen print ink or is that considered paint?
If the printing penetrates the substrate material, so it cannot be scrapped off without damaging underlying material, it is considered exempted printing."

[Former_Member]

I only sell originals (for now) but all the materials I use are also non-toxic, I'm still waiting to see what's going on, I want to be 100% sure.

[TheFurkidStudio]

I was told by Bobby Rush's office that ART PRINTS ARE NOT INCLUDED. Call them for yourselves to hear it firsthand.

[Former_Member]

Now, if they will exempt non-toxic paints (among other things!) I will be ecstatic!!

[Former_Member]

threeredtrees-- did they say anything about original paintings? I can show that all my paint is non toxic...