Reasonable Regulations

[#1]

I want to know what regulations and standards would be fair and reasonable for sellers of kids products on Etsy.

There are a lot of threads bemoaning government intrusion and saying that all regulation is tyranny. I just don't buy that. Corporations are accountable for the things they put out in the market, and just like the FDA sets minimum safety standards for drugs and the USDA sets minimum safety standards for food, the CPSA is setting minimum safety standards for consumer products, which is entirely appropriate.

What sucks, and what I take issue with, is that the CPSIA is skewed in the interest of big business: it places a proportionally larger burden on small companies and creates so many obstacles to complying that it effectively bars less capitalized companies from getting their product into the marketplace.

Given the toy recalls, lead poisonings and child deaths in recent years, I just don't see demanding a complete overturn of CPSIA as a winning or convincing argument. So what I'm wondering is, what are the regulations and standards that you, as a small manufacturer, could live with?

[Former_Member]

i think the criminal act is in knowingly selling the dangerous goods. or perhaps it would be easier to think of it as a matter of liability? (since we're so fond of suing each other)

regardless of the "knowingly" bit, dangerous goods would still be subject to recalls and the like. i just wouldn't want an executive to make a business decision to ship a dangerous item, figuring it has a good chance of going under the radar.

[Former_Member]

Ach~ I am glad you restated the question for the post...It gives a lot more postitive spin on things when we are discussing how we would do this law better! :)

[Former_Member]

My idea would still involve testing preemptively before any child got sick.

I just think that as far reaching and overbroad as this law is, it still doesn't prevent lead from ending up in toys. It just means that some Chinese factory claims in a digital form to have sent appropriate samples to a Chinese lab and that they still use the exact materials for every product in the lot. Sure. If they want to pass us lead, they still can. We're still ultimately just taking their word for it.

Our government needs to randomly select and test products.

[Former_Member]

Although I agree that testing needs to be done (at the supplier level, IMO), I also support the notion that certain products do not present a risk great enough to justify the expense of testing the material. Wood, for example. Could wood contain lead? I suppose so - what if the soil in which the tree grew contained high levels of lead? Same with cotton. BUT... even the engineers and experts at the CPSC - who are erring on the side of caution - have concluded that the risk of these products containing lead (and/or the risk that a child would ingest the material resulting in absorption of lead) is small. I think that materials that have a low theoretical risk of containing lead should be exempted.

[Former_Member]

Fayes, there have been recalls of fabric (the lead was in the dyes). That you don't know that is proof to me that mandating some kind of safety requirements is necessary.

And btw, I make jewelery in CA so I am already subject to lead-limit laws. However, the law was written differently than CPSIA so that certain materials are exempt and I can comply by obtaining the certificates from my suppliers.

[Former_Member]

As soon as I found out about this law....I started contacting my suppliers so that I could know that I was producing safe items for my customers. I think that it would be perfectly reasonable to submit to random testing at the request of the CPSC so that they can test my product (at their cost).

[Former_Member]

I agree with testing, but it should be on the supply side. If I use eco-friendly fiberfill, and so do 1000's of other crafters, why should each and every one of us go ahead and test it? It's goofy!

[Former_Member]

Nutty...Goofy...Absurd...Loopy...it may be more fun to come up with names to describe it! LOL

[Former_Member]

Bonkers!!!! (I've always been a fan of bonkers) ;)

[Former_Member]

LOL---
Wonky!

[meredithdillman]

I don't make anything I would call children's products at the moment. But I think there needs to be testing of raw materials or being able to produce a certificate that one's supplies have been tested as well as exemptions for natural materials (cotton, wool, unfinished wood, beeswax). If I was a toymaker it would be easier to test the materials than test 100 times for 100 designs made from the same materials.

[Former_Member]

Personally, I favor a multi-pronged approach. I think materials manufacturers need to test and provide certificates otherwise crafters really ultimately *don't* know the contents of their supplies unless they spring for the testing themselves.

I think an option for companies that make in small batches to chose between lab-testing and obtaining the certificates for every component might be appropriate. This would not work for companies that outsource because a big problem is contracted factories making substitutions. But allowing domestic manufacturers to do their due dilligance by keeping files of certifactes, same way we all keep receipts, might help level the playing field which is right now so much skewed in favor of those who can afford to pay more.

I like the idea of products being subject to random audits.

I also think agencies need to do a better job at issuing clear instructions and lists of risky materials and institute a safe-harbor voluntary compliance program. That, of course, would require a lot more staff and funding.

[KrissysOTMCrochet]

AchAch,

I'm wondering what fabric has been found to have lead laden dyes?

[Former_Member]

As far as I knew, the fabric recalls centered around lead paint violations (i.e., designs painted or stamped on top of the fabric), not for violations of lead in substrate regulations.

[Former_Member]

I agree, meredith, except that contracted factories have made some notorious materials-substitutions.

I think the law probably needs to distinguish between trans-national corporations and human-scale producers. I don't think anyone should be completely exempt, but I think the only way to be fair is for the requirements for each to be different.

[Former_Member]

KrissysWonders
KrissysWonders says:
AchAch,

I'm wondering what fabric has been found to have lead laden dyes?
-----
You know, I'm a jeweler, I'm not terribly knowledgable about textiles and I don't want to give you the wrong information. But fashion-incubator is a good place to ask.

[Former_Member]

I certainly think that all consumer products should be safe. It is impossible to guess what a child will wear or use.

I don't think the burden of proof should be on the end users of the products. That results in much redundancy in testing. I think I should be able to order fabrics, threads, buttons, and yarns which are safe to cut, sew or crochet into equally safe end products.

A better definition of who must test should be made. A broad declaration of "all manufacturers" is ridiculous. Assembly of parts is different from making parts. I don't buy the blanket accusation of adding lead into it out of nothing. I don't buy "guilty until proven innocent" either. That's un-American.

The law as written needs to be repealed, and they need to start over. Everything about this law is impossible--the broad scope, the schedule of implementation, the lack of testing facilities...everything is insane!

[Former_Member]

If things are going to be regulated for children under 12, why isn't everything regulated? I know for a fact that my 11 month old has put my clothes in her mouth, sucked on my comforter, put a magazine in her mouth, and I could go on and on. AND I watch her constantly. Shouldn't it be the manufactures of the supplies be the one that is responsible to test? If the government wants our children not to be exposed to lead, then all supplies should be tested before they are distributed. Because children don't live in a bubble, they are part of the environment. Even though the outfit they are wearing is supposedly not lead free, the household bath towel next to them that they are chewing on wasn't tested because it wasn't intended for children, is ridiculous. This is why the law is crazy. All fabric, paint, etc., should be lead free, however, if the supply is not lead free then it should state that. Yes, we should be protecting our children, but it has to be enforced and written the correct way.

[KrissysOTMCrochet]

Thank you little pink. I was finding it hard to understand the fabric itself having lead in it.

I think we are hearing so much layspeak, that the interpretation of the law, and it's true intentions, are being misconstrued. We need to continue to be noisey, and keep it front of the lawmakers, to get the clarity, "FROM THEM" that we need.

[Former_Member]

I admit that this is hardly an exhaustive search, but I just went through all of the recalls for children's clothing that were based on lead violations listed on the CPSC web page. All of the recalls were based on there being something screen printed, stamped, or painted on top of fabric. I do not recall ever reading that there is a documented risk that fabrics themselves contain lead.

With that said, AchAch, I think you've put some good suggestions out there. I love the idea of an audit system, and I completely agree with allowing component testing (except in situations where lead could be added to components by virtue of the manufacturing process itself) coupled with allowing reliance on testing performed at the supplier level.

[KrissysOTMCrochet]

tiptopapplesauce says:
I certainly think that all consumer products should be safe. It is impossible to guess what a child will wear or use.

I don't think the burden of proof should be on the end users of the products. That results in much redundancy in testing. I think I should be able to order fabrics, threads, buttons, and yarns which are safe to cut, sew or crochet into equally safe end products.

A better definition of who must test should be made. A broad declaration of "all manufacturers" is ridiculous. Assembly of parts is different from making parts. I don't buy the blanket accusation of adding lead into it out of nothing. I don't buy "guilty until proven innocent" either. That's un-American.

The law as written needs to be repealed, and they need to start over. Everything about this law is impossible--the broad scope, the schedule of implementation, the lack of testing facilities...everything is insane!


VERY WELL SPOKEN!!! The responsibility should be with the supplier. And the last time I looked, I was not Chinese, producing a product intended for the consumer abroad!!

[Former_Member]

I'm just starting out on ETSY and after hearing this I'm not feeling so "merry" anymore and I can't even change my name now to accurately reflect how frustrated I am. For a few years I collected recycled materials and now I have a room full of stuff that needs to be tested and certified, I don't know which is going to get "certified " first ....me or these materials! After reading about the vintage buttons with lead paint on them and the products from Michael's that contained lead, I don't know what to do. All of us band together and form an organized constiuency of registered voters to talk to congress with. And just say ,"HELP US COMPLY!" Make it affordable.

[Former_Member]

It would be reasonable to say that all materials and supplies that have been tested by their manufacturers or are 100% natural may be used to create new products that do not have to be tested again.

There are many, many materials that already carry a Non-Toxic certification on them. There are many, many materials that are known to contain no lead or philates. These materials should be allowed to be used without testing.

[KrissysOTMCrochet]

Instituting a watchdog system on the overseas producers, should have been the first step.

Then a periodic testing of supplies once they enter the U.S.

Also a watchdog system on the U.S. producers. I find it hard to believe that things made in the U.S. are laden with lead.

I think the producers of the supplies, should bear the burden of proof.

[Former_Member]

Someone on Etsy once explained some Eurpoean regulations...

The manufactuer of the supply, who has to test already labels their goods with corresponding safety codes (a'la: safe for use in items made for children under 12)

That seems reasonable to me.

I emailed a button supplier I used to ask about lead content and received an email that their buttons already undergo 3rd party lead testing.

If they could easily mark those buttons with corresponding saftey codes for small businesses to use it would seem helpful and in the same line as keeping children safe.