Cotton exempted from Lead Testing Laws

[JSDesignsCompany]

If I am reading this correctly, I will still be able to sell my baby items (excluding hair accessories) because I strictly use cotton clothing and fabrics.

Please let me know if I've misread, but I wanted to pass this along!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a0Xr2Iw1Vi_8&refer=us

[Former_Member]

It states that natural cottons are exempt...not the pretty ones we typically use that have been dyed.

[HipViolet]

Unfortunately this exempted UNALTERED cotton, wool, etc. This means as soon as the cotton ball was plucked from the plant and *gasp* spun into fabric, it was altered.

Thus this exemption did pretty much nothing for us that use cotton fabric. :(

We're still hanging on hoping they amend it to read all 100% cotton fabrics. They have never been known to carry lead in any form. Sorry!

[Former_Member]

That would be great. Here is the line you are talking about:
The CPSC exempted wool, cotton, silk, gemstones and pearls in its proposal today.

I hope so since I use wool. But I attach the wool to ponytail holders and hair clips that are not exempt but are sold in the US market.

[TheArtfulMommy]

I heard that somewhere else but what about phthalates? Though is cotton even treated with that stuff? UGH!

[LaurieRyan]

which is why we need to keep working hard to get this stupid law totally repealed we can get this done even before feb the 11th

[MooreMagnets]

Yes the reporter failed to put in the words "untreated, undyed"

[Former_Member]

So once the cotton or wool is processed and dyed it no longer qualifies? That is just nuts I would never hand a kid just picked cotton or just shaved wool to play with.

[Former_Member]

Go here:
http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/cpsia.HTML

Under What's new is a section on exemptions, where that "natural" products line is ...

In short, those materials are exempted if they are unaltered. So sure, we can continue to make children's items, so long as it's in natural, undyed cottons and linens.

Great, thanks.

/snark
//so pissed about this, I can hardly see straight

[Former_Member]

and, "they" think they have really done something, lol!

[Former_Member]

This whole thing is just stupid. Makes me so made at our government. Did they not pay any attention to what people want? When all the lead was showing up in toys people started buying handmade, all they are doing is taking that option away.

[Former_Member]

As of right now you have to test anything the CPSC has jurisdiction over that is for children 12 and under. The proposed exemption are just that a PROPOSAL. The CPSIA committee is taking comments until, I think feb 4th, before they present to the full commission who will in turn decide if the proposal should go to Congress and The House to be voted on as a amendment to Public Law 110-314, then of course it has to goto the President who can after all that veto it.

List of product lines that the CPSC DOES NOT have Jurisdiction for. So if your type of products are not on the list & the CPSIA considers your products to appeal to or be made for children you will be required to test for at least lead.
http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/notcpsc.html

A small glimmer of hope for organic fabric (undyed), untreated wood (nonstained or coated), and other natural but unaltered material users :
http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/leadlimitsfr.pdf
Public comment is open till 2-4-09 (30 days after the meeting)email address id on page 2 of the document. So please contact them with your suggestions on what materials should be considered exempt with a logical reason as to why.

[Former_Member]

Thanks for the article!

[Former_Member]

http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/cpsia.HTML

Also scroll down to read General Counsel advisories. These are things where the General Counsel has responded to the letters that unhappy manufacturers have sent to the CPSC.

Particularly the "wearing apparel" section caught my attention.

Shoes, hats and parkas are exempt for some reason. Looks like clothing in general may be also, but not costumes, which are for play. Bibs are out because they are used in feeding, and aprons are probably out too because they could be construed as useful for feeding AND play...

Overalls are probably ok.

See what a mess it is? Even the general counsel seems to understand that the whole thing is a mess.

[JSDesignsCompany]

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarifications.

@ artful: From what I understand (again...could be wrong...it's awfully hard to concentrate on legal mumbo-jumbo when you have kids running around the house), testing for phthalates is for things that come into contact with childrens mouths (blankets, pacifiers, bottles, pajamas, bedding, burp cloths).

[Former_Member]

If shoes are exempt are slippers too?

[Former_Member]

jewelrydesignsbyME
Thanks for all of that information. I do have a question that maybe you know the answer to. Using the wool I use as an example. If the wool is not chemically cleaned I can still use it right? Now my question is are dyes going to be tested? Rite is not the dye of choice but lets use it as the example will Rite have to pay for testing since it is open for use on anything? If it is not required to be tested will they have to add a warning label? And if they do test it will people using it then be required to test the product they make with it?

Grrrr this is just nutty. I have signed petitions and sent letters but have note read up to much because it makes me angry.

[Former_Member]

dunno, scire4. I am not a lawyer :)
Read the counsel opinions and see what you think, but remember (and they remind you at every turn) that their responses are just opinions and that everything is subject to the law and the interpretations of the law as by enforcement officials.

Talk about taking advice with a grain of salt...

[Former_Member]

And remember, the law applies to the *product* not to its components.

The products must be tested - so sayeth the CPSIA.

[Former_Member]

Shoes? SHOES? SHOES ARE EXEMPT??!! Isn't a child (over 12 btw) swallowing a 99% lead charm off of a shoe and dying as a result what started this mess in the first place???

Sorry, I've been following this, and even tho I'm not a seller here (yet), I'm pretty steamed on behalf of you all.

Ya know what would put some teeth in the law and bring back some American manufacturing jobs? Exempting items manufactured in America. Even better - of American-made components.

Make "Made in the USA" worth something.

[Former_Member]

Lizzypops says:
And remember, the law applies to the *product* not to its components.

The products must be tested - so sayeth the CPSIA.


Blaaa They suck.

[Former_Member]

Yes, yes they do suck.

giant, hairy donkey balls, they suck

/pardon the unladylike turn-of-phrase

[Former_Member]

LMAO

[Former_Member]

this was a proposal not a final exemption. they had closed door meetings yesterday so hopefully something will come out of it.

[happywhosits]

First, this is proposed, but not final yet.

Second, it only unaltered, meaning no dyes, no paint. AKA bland, dull, any probably not what very many people would want to buy.

Eileen...