Is Steam a Seam fusible webbing compliant?

[Former_Member]

I emailed the number on the back of the package and got a very prompt and nice resmponse with some documents attached. But I don't think it is the right thing. Are they giving me the runaround? Has anyone else looked into this product. Quilters use it a lot, I think. Do any of you make baby quilts with it? I would love to know if this is a lost cause before I go on a wild goose chase.

Thanks!

[Former_Member]

Any thoughts on this?

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

So, what did the documents say? interfacing is exempt, including iron on interfacing. The steam a seam is completely covered by the two layers that it is binding together.

I really can't believe that the feds are going to rip apart everything to check how a baby quilt or a hem is put together. We have far greater problems in this country than throwing people in jail for using steam a seam.

[Former_Member]

That is a good point about both sides being covered. The material is not really exposed. I don't think the feds are going to come knocking on my door anyway, but I wonder about this product because you are basically melting plastic to fuse two surfaces.

The document I got was not the right thing, but it had some information. It was primarily concerned with the user of the product being safe, not the final product. It seemed to say that it was safe to use if done according to direction, but it was dated 1994! I think some more recent date would be useful. I am troubled mostly by the fact that they didn't immediately know what I was talking about. I fear they are evading.

Anyway, it doesn't appear that this item has been tested. But interfacing being exempt is a good sigh!

[Former_Member]

I have this same question but for elastic. Anyone know?

[boodybabies]

As far as I can tell, there aren't any exemptions for phthalates testing even if the component is inaccessible and elastic is specifically listed as a product that MAY have phthalates in it. However, from my interpretation of the phthalates requirement, they are only wanting child care items tested which doesn't include clothing except for bibs and sleepwear.

[Former_Member]

Thanks boodybabies. I know elastic is mentioned as something that may have to be tested, but I THINK there are some that have been tested. I will see what I can find. I am still really surprised to find that there isn't any mention of the fusible web stuff. It seems so kid oriented in its decorative use.

[Former_Member]

Where does it say interfacing is exempt? I don't believe it is. Iron-on interfacing is a material with a surface coating.

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

In one of the miriad pages from the cpsc. I must have 2000 pages by now.

[Former_Member]

I'm pretty sure that steam a seam and stitch witchery are compliant. It goes with interfacing... structurally important.

[Former_Member]

Thanks berryblue
Do you remember where you found this? I have been looking and I haven't seen anything about interfacing? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? Any tips?

[Former_Member]

You're welcome, greenhotmama. I'm sorry I don't remember where I saw this, but will try and find it for you.

[Former_Member]

I just did a google search for CPSIA Interfacing Compliance and came up with this string of links
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS327&=&q=CPSIA+Interfacing+compliance&aq...

One of the links in that search should answer your question.

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

You won't find it at those links, they are mostly talking about a computor interface for finding and downloading gcc's and it will cost you.

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

If I find the time, I"ll try finding where it was written, in one of the pages written by Tennenbaum I think.

[Former_Member]

It's basically referenced in the section of the law about inaccessabilty, if a child can not reach the uncertified or non-exempt component then you do not need to have it tested. Though I would not rely on that alone, the CPSC recently (like april'10) recalled something like 4,000 pairs of jeans under the CPSIA because the lower zipper stop contained too much lead. Yes the part that is covered by fabric when the jeans are sewn together because the probe they used could get between the placket into the pocketed area where the bottom stop was located.
So if at all possible try to get the GCC or testing results just to be on the safe side. Mostly because with the way this law is written it is so open to interpetation that one office or person at the CPSC may say it's ok but another person at the CPSC, a state's GA, or the media may say it's not because the fusing could of leaked out the sides.

[Former_Member]

I did find this:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_o49pp3dl0gJ:www.boutiquecafe.com/home/2008/12/...
"Most info that I have read indicates thread would be a substrate and therefore require testing. Both labs I spoke to said “no.” When I asked them about interfacing or elastic, I was told “no” if there were not exposed."

[Former_Member]

Thank you all so very much. This is such a tangly issue. It is really important to me to make every effort to comply with these regulations and it is difficult at times. I have not gotten any fully clear answers on the fusible webbing, but I am hopeful that some of the companies that I am contacting will come up with some information. I am not really comfortable using it until I have some certification of its safety because I am afraid something might pull off and come "unfused" if it is washed too hot or something.

One thing, though. I see all kinds of applique and iron on items for sale here on Etsy. I suspect that most of those sellers do not test or have any information on file about phthalates. I don't think many people pay attention to this. I would like to contact other sellers on this. I don't think anything good can come of smearing others in general, but if all of these applique makers on Etsy wanted compliant materials to make their goods, we would really represent a lot of buying power. Is this worth bring up? Are enough of the people ignoring the laws just afraid to muddle through it alone?

In the meantime, I think I am going to work on some applique designs that I can do without fusible webbing. But I bet if we banded together, we could put pressure on supply companies that cater to the small crafter.

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

appliques that are made of fabric, fused to the base fabric, like a t-shirt, then stitched around the edges were considered inaccessable.

The only appliques that have been called in to question are the ones that can be purchased and may have a plasticy shiney surface and are intended to be ironed on. These may need to be tested for phthalates.

If you are uncomfortable in not using fusible webbing, then have it tested for yourself. Please don't accuse others of not being in compliance, or not testing, or not having gcc's. You really have no way of knowing. And if you haven't read all, and I mean ALL of the hundreds of pages of verbage that has come out of the CPSC, how can you possibly know what is correct?

[Former_Member]

I'm sorry Faye Malone designs, I didn't mean to make an accusation. What I was trying to find out is if there is any way to start a discourse with others who use similar materials and techniques without asking directly if they have GCCs or test themselves for their final products. It would be a useful meeting, because I think as purchasers of supplies we may well have a lot of buying power. If this is an issue for lots of other makers of kid's stuff, we might be able to approach companies that produce the products like fusible webbing and let them to know we might consider switching brands if a company is easier to work with than its competitors on this matter.

Clearly creating a discourse on this matter is tricky. Many people would see it as an accusation rather than an opportunity to create some numerical momentum.

I didn't mean to imply that anyone in particular is not compliant, but with all that it takes to be, it seems unlikely that all sellers could be. It is a huge burden. Perhaps less so with more of us working together. No way to find out if this is true without asking.

[Former_Member]

At least personally, if I can't get the producer to confirm that something complies fully and give me the documents to prove it, if instead I get some grand runaround, then that tells me straight off that the materials are not compliant and they know it. (Why take a test you know you will fail and then not have your deniability?) Dodging a question is really as good as saying "nope" in my book, but more irritating and tricksy so as to not loose that customer they apparently want bad enough to mislead, but not bad enough to do the silly test.


In a more ideal world, it would be easier to do the testing in the first place (read: cheaper) and then we wouldn't have to rely on the manufacturer to actually answer our questions rather than dodge around them, nor worry about companies sneaking bad stuff into our kids toys to begin with.

Another little idea is that, if as customers we can't get companies to test their products for us, we could instead band together as a group of "Item A" users and split the cost of testing certain things. I for one don't have the $400 to test only the fusible interfacing for myself, but if even just 10 of us desperately need this results, suddenly it just costs $40 to test it, and that is a little more workable. Don't ask me for details on executing this "plan" or start sending me money though, I'm just the dreamer-upper. Who knows, maybe there is an Etsy Testing Team lurking in the shadows of the future.

[Former_Member]

UnusualEwe you might be on to something. Etsy Testing Team or a Crafters guild of sharing the cost is a great idea. I agree, probably not on the immediate horizon, but who knows....

I was initially thinking to use our numbers to hopefully pressure the large companies that make these products. But using numbers to circumvent them--even better.

Thanks so much for your input.
So anyone else is getting the runaround?

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

UnusualEwe says:
At least personally, if I can't get the producer to confirm that something complies fully and give me the documents to prove it, if instead I get some grand runaround, then that tells me straight off that the materials are not compliant and they know it. (Why take a test you know you will fail and then not have your deniability?) Dodging a question is really as good as saying "nope" in my book, but more irritating and tricksy so as to not loose that customer they apparently want bad enough to mislead, but not bad enough to do the silly test.
*********

You are completely wrong with this thinking. The way the law is written, the producer does not have to test. They are exempt from testing. It does not make their product "hazardous" nor does it make it non compliant. The dear Senators and Congresspeeps, wrote the law this way. We all know that 99% of the supplies we use are perfectly okay to use, I can buy them and use them on my own children, and the government has no problem with them, because they know damn well that they are safe.

They want control, control over all public business. How can they do this? By convincing Mommies that all chldren's products are deadly, unless they are tested by "government approved labs". They can't scare large companies as easily as they can scare little businesses, besides they can absorb the cost of testing, and have been given permission to have their own testing labs in house. We don't contribute to their campaigns except with nickels and dimes. But they can put us out of business with either their convoluted rules and regulations, or by spreading fear into the minds of buyers.

No one wants to sell harmful products to children. If this was really on the top of their pea sized minds when they wrote these laws, they would have done a little more research into where the crap was coming from, and put a stop to it. But they can't and won't, because the big Country that makes all the toys that caused the whole nightmare, owns most of our debt, and just bought a bunch more this week.

Take a little tour of the recalled children's products on the CPSC website. Read where they are manufactured, and if any reports of accidents or injury have occured. Yes, with cribs, and other durable goods, but look where they were made. They can recall 4000 pair of jeans because a little probe can be made to be minipulated to touch the bottom stop of a zipper,which is enclosed on the back and front, and if by chance is touched is only for a micro second, but is this really a health hazard, when the child is eating processed food products with 70% saturated fat, and unknown cooking conditions on a daily basis? I don't think so.