Beth Leistensnider — Feb 6 2009 03:28 PM

Honestly, you should carefully read the law itself. There truly are problems with the law; it is not simply a matter of the CPSC not doing their job. What Congress wrote is in many cases overreaching and unreasonable. The solution is not rulemaking by a regulatory agency to cobble together a system for compliance, rather it is rewriting the law in a way that reduces risks where they exist and does not bankrupt companies in the process. Many of the makers of the European toys that you praise above have already pulled out of the market due to the costs of testing requirements written in such a way to mandate redundancy (finished unit testing vs. component testing, for example). Also, I guarantee you that contacting the CPSC directly will not result in any kind of change whatsoever. People have been calling and writing them for months and we are still coming up on February 10 with a huge mess on our hands.

hilary williams — Feb 6 2009 03:37 PM

I don't care WHO the problem is, if the regulations aren't ready to be enforced, then they need to have a stay in place. Better still, a stay with clear guidelines on how to proceed for the duration.

I appreciate all the great research, but I very seriously question how extensively the economic impact has been studdied, and the resulting affects on..

...yes...

...children.

There are an awful lot of parents in the childrens product business.

Courtney @NRDC — Feb 6 2009 03:47 PM

Hi guys-- just want to make sure we're all on the same page: Due to the "stay" no one (absolutely no one) has to test ANY products until 2010. A whole year from now.

Also- contacting CPSC is to ask for exemptions--(the legal version of a doctor's note saying that you don't ever have to take gym class)--not for the rules to be changed. If you're eligible for the exemption you should be granted one. And we have a whole year to make sure the people running CPSC are doing their jobs, granting exemptions, and responding to your concerns.

Betsy — Feb 6 2009 03:57 PM

Courtney: Hate to burst your bubble, but it *doesn't matter* that the stay relieves anyone of the *requirement* to provide GCCs/COCs, or testing. The reality is that with the lead & phthalates limits still in place, stores and resellers are returning and refusing to accept products that have not been tested and certified, because they refuse to take on the risk and liability in selling possibly noncompliant products. Comfort in the fact that you don't *have* to test or certify is *cold* comfort in the face of your biz closing because few or no stores will sell your products unless you have done both!

Kathleen — Feb 6 2009 04:08 PM

Where's the GCC for that "onesie" NRDC is so proud of? Btw, "onesie" is trademarked; considering Gerber isn't happy about CPSIA, I'm sure they'll step right up and notify you of your infringement.

Speaking of that onesie, how do you know it will pass? You can't. Do you have any idea how many snap sets fail? Ask Jennifer Taggart who's tested thousands. We can't wait for our order to arrive.

Speaking of, you'd better get tested quick! NRDC et al have happily spouted that testing only costs $50 and for the sake of being easy to get along with, I'll give you that figure but here's what it'll cost to have that 100% organic onesie tested, the same as it costs all of my 100% organic manufacturers:
$50 light green ink
$50 dk green ink
$50 orange ink
$50 thread (overlock)
$50 thread (flatlock)
$50 snap, female side
$50 snap, male side -yes, these must be tested separately!!!
$50 fabric
$50 ribbing
$50 label 1
$50 care label

Iow, $550 to have this thing tested. That's what we would pay but I'm sure NRDC will mask the costs by borrowing an XRF gun from their friends at USPIRG. Unfortunately, we don't have the resources you do at NRDC and somehow have to figure out a way to pay for it. You do the math; how many did you buy? At what cost? If you had to have the revenues from this item to keep the lights on, would it pay for itself? I don't think so. Btw, many of my manufacturers make single items just like this. This is their income. It's not greed, it's groceries!

In the meantime, we're eagerly awaiting your GCC for this item otherwise I have little doubt the first whistle blows CPSC will get on Feb 10th is about your product.

You also might want to enlighten your twitter person who thinks NRDC is off the hook for testing as a private labeler. Those twitters have been a PR bonanza -for us- showing how little you all really understand the law you lobbied so hard for.

Deb S — Feb 6 2009 04:56 PM

For the record, for starters, the stay doesn't apply to surface paints. Does that include screen prints on the *surface* of a onesie?

The stay DOES NOT exempt EVERYONE from testing; it also DOES NOT exempt ANYONE from liability in the event that lead *is* found in a garment or in ANY item for kids 12 and under. I'd agree that your organic onesies probably don't contain lead, but *can you be SURE?*

When the NRDC lobbied for this bill, did it even CONSIDER that the "people who make natural and handmade toys" (your quote above) would be not only "affected" but DECIMATED?!? If the law you lobbied for isn't amended, your organic onesies will be a thing of the past one year from now. Want to join our fire sales?

The CPSC is not LEGALLY ABLE to make the changes and exemptions Congress has suggested in the timeframe and under the conditions Congress has allowed in the phrasing of the law. Please make sure you note that when tossing around phrases like "CPSC's ineffective implementation." And the General Counsel Cheryl Falvey is the one responsible for eliminating any grandfathering, whether it's in Wal-Mart (whose clothing is "safe" today but "hazardous" in 5 more days?) or cottage industries who won't be able to afford the testing MANDATED by the CPSIA. Sorry, but Cheryl Falvey is not on our list of people many of us are endeared of ATM. It means that OUR stock of handmade natural-material garments and toys also needs to be determined to be lead-free in order for us to sell it with peace of mind.

The exemptions you suggest we "press for" (via snail mail, no less): any idea how long it takes to fill out the form, let alone how long it'll take an underfunded understaffed CPSC to even READ, let alone process? You go first! :-) Let us know how simple it is, 'K?

The NRDC lobbied for the law, the NRDC got it, but is the NRDC *really* aware of its ramifications? And will the NRDC comply with the LAW itself, meaning ALL of it, everything that applies, everything that's NOT covered by the stay? EVERYTHING? And will the NRDC also fight for those who might otherwise be very much behind what the NRDC itself stands for? Small-batch suppliers of organic garments (is that redundant perhaps?) won't be able to afford to comply with this law and will either go out of business or have no choice but to resort to mass-produced highly-processed cotton garments from, say, China. Bye-bye organic garments! :-(

My point: there's more to this law than meets the eye, and knee-jerk backing of it by so many groups led to its passage. Look deeper. Now it affects YOU too. Where does the NRDC stand not just on the law, but on its implications?

trin — Feb 6 2009 05:41 PM

The stay does NOT include items that have paint (testing is still required), does NOT include cribs or pacifiers, and does NOT include metal jewelry or other small metal parts.

PLEASE, read the actual document.
Those items STILL require testing and certification.

This stay offers the rest of us: makers of OOAK, wood, fabric, and textile items etc. (IT'S NOT JUST TOYS!!!!) a chance to figure out how we can comply, IF we can comply, and to figure out what to do NEXT.

READ the actual original law, READ the document extending the stay.

Many many materials should be exempted as a CLASS of items. (There is NOT a given exemption for items not likely to contain lead or phylates AT THIS TIME.)

There are many parts of the law, as written, that seem contradictory, or at the very least extremely confusing.

It would have made a HUGE difference to get a straight answer, that was NOT later contradicted or taken back entirely from the beginning. CPSC could have also notified the handmade community back in MAY when the law was being put together, and not wait till we accidentally stumbled on it in DECEMBER.

We have consistently been given contradictory information, often from the SAME person, and also been told that we ARE expected to comply in the same way that Mattel and Hasbro are expected to comply.
A $50/material charge for testing a COMPLETED ITEM out of a batch of thousands is an insignificant expense. This same charge for an item of a batch of ONE ITEM is exhorbitant. It makes a $20 toy now cost over $100... and makes the OOAK item non existant.

The handmade community has been discussing this and BEGGING for clarification and help from CPSC and Congress since DECEMBER...and still do not feel we can do business.

This ALSO affects families for whom even Wal-mart is too expensive. (I've been there!)
Many families have always relied on Goodwill, and Salvation Army stores to be able to clothe and equip their children.
While resale shops are NOT held to the testing requirement they face substantial fines or even criminal liability if a non-compliant item is found on their shelves...even if that item has not actually been sold or hurt anyone.

Locally, SA store is closing it's children's section, and MANY local boutiques carrying not only 2nd hand, but well made small batch children's items have closed their doors for good because of this law.

How is this helping anyone?

DHM — Feb 7 2009 02:04 PM

Lead and phthalate free products are already on the market around the world. The same six phthalates banned by the CPSIA have been banned in European toys for nearly 10 years.

Right. Do you mean to tell me you are unaware that the redundant, expensive, unwieldy, 3rd party testing of each and every component and then the final product at the manufacturer's level, batch by batch has already pushed one of those fantastic European toy companies, one of the coolest sources for safe, non-toxic, wooden toys OUT OF THE AMERICAN MARKET?

Selecta Toys has decided not to sell their toys in the American market:

"Breaking news: Selecta to cease U.S. distribution due to new testing requirements
By Jeremiah | December 05, 2008
German wooden toymaker Selecta Spielzeug has announced that due to the extensive new testing requirements that will be imposed on manufacturers next year under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, it will cease distributing its toys in the U.S. effective December 31, 2008.

Selecta manufactures toys that comply with strict EU regulations for phthalates and other potentially harmful chemicals, but cites the cost of new testing as the reason it can no longer supply the U.S. market. The company claims that prices would be forced upwards "by at least 50 percent, which would price these products out of the market.'"

Do you understand what that means? China can comply with the CPSIA. Large makers of plastic junk can comply. But you, in your marvelous wisdom and moral superiority pushed Selecta right out of the American Market and you don't even know it, because you don't examine the facts for yourselves.

You guys didn't even read this bill for yourselves, did you? You just listened to whoever pulls the strings, some high paid lawyer at the top of your organizations, no doubt, and dutifully repeated whatever you were told, like good little robots, without EVER CHECKING THE FACTS FOR YOURSELVES.

I have been told I'm just some front, a tool, for BIG BUSINESS. But you know what? I am a housewife, a mother of a large family, and I've been feeding my family organic, wholesome, whole grain brown rice and home-made brown bread probably since before you were born. I 'wore' my first baby and practiced attachment parenting with her (and the rest of my babies) before it even had a name- she's 25 now.

I started getting rid of plastic junk in my home and replacing it with lovely, warm, natural materials some 13 YEARS ago (I won't lie, the nasty stuff keeps coming back, and my son won't give up his legos)- I quit buying cheese in plastic, told my kids I would not be buying any more plastic toys, and I went searching for the best toys I could afford.

I have a seriously handicapped child (adopted, btw) and I wanted wooden blocks and shape sorting toys, wooden puzzles, wooden threading toys, for her, toys that were clean, safe, and beautiful, and I found Selecta and another German company- I couldn't afford them new, not being some yuppie type, but I found them on eBay, and I still have them, they've been through three of my children and dozens of visiting children- and YOU PEOPLE made that venue felonious. YOU SHUT IT DOWN because you're too proud of your own moral superiority to actually read the stinking law and listen to anybody who hasn't been programmed to spout the party script, which was handed down to you from on high BY LAWYERS and Politicians.

I will soon be unable to buy Selecta toys in the United States directly due to the CPSIA, and you have the nerve to tell me this law is a good thing because after all, it only bans the same pthalates that have been banned in Europe for years.

NO. That is NOT ALL IT DOES, and we've been trying to tell you that, but your moral superiority is clogging up your ears.
It just so happened that the way this law is written, IT ALSO bans those very European toys that already meet all the requirements. It also bans that clothing item you have listed on your site, or makes it cost several hundred dollars. It also bans books published before 1985. It also bans bikes for 12 year olds.
It bans hundreds of bib makers from the market place, and only leaves a few of the large McSame items available to us, and you want to be thanked for that.

Selecta toys from Germany cannot comply with this law. Do you see what that means? That PROVES that this law is not about keeping children safe, because Selecta toys ARE safe- it's about putting money in the pockets of lawyers who can sue more for larger sums, putting power into the hands of those who don't have the wisdom or humility to deserve it or use it properly, and making yourselves feel good, while the harm you have done and continue to do FAR and away outweighs the evil results of this very badly written law.

You are wrong. Your lawyers are wrong. The CPSC cannot fix this. Congress needs to change the law.

Deb S — Feb 7 2009 02:18 PM

Think about it: Selecta uses sustainably harvested wood and uses parts and paints whose standards EXCEED US standards, but they still WOULD NOT be exempt from the cost of accredited third-party lab testing. So a responsible company using (I'm going to say it again, in all-caps to make sure) SUSTAINABLY HARVESTED woods, obtaining their raw materials responsibly, is now out of the US market.

Small one-person companies who have been conscientiously and proudly making items in small batches with few employees - read NO SWEATSHOPS - are going out of business in droves. Small-batch artisans who knit and crochet children's apparel and toys WITH ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS from the process - transforming lead-free yarn into toys that are considered "hazardous" by the mere use of knitting needles and crochet hooks, mind you - are going out of business. Families who have relied on this income to pay for medical care and therapy for special-needs children, to homeschool their kids, to put food on the table when a spouse is injured or ill or otherwise unable to work are losing this income too. :-(

Is this what the NRDC *really* had in mind when they jumped on the bandwagon? I doubt it, and it's past time that the NRDC considered what the far-reaching ramifications, including impacts on *natural* resources, this law is really going to have. Sustainably-harvested materials, low-impact cottage industry, and don't forget landfills where untested merchandise will likely end up - I'm hoping these weren't part of the plan.

Is this what the NRDC *really* had in mind?

anne — Feb 9 2009 03:10 PM

Starting tomorrow, all pre-1985 children's books will be illegal to sell. This means you cannot find and pass down your favorite childhood books to your children. That's really very sad. Did you really intend to destroy our history?

ss — Feb 9 2009 06:08 PM

"they do need to use their best judgment and refuse to stock children's products that are clearly risky (i.e. PVC rubber duckies)" or maybe (i.e. snaps on Onesies(r))!

ss — Feb 9 2009 06:29 PM

Lobbying for an exemption, spending on testing, or having to throw away all existing inventory seems pretty cumbersome for small resellers. They should just stop selling their untested products and instead give the items away in return for generous donations. Maybe crazy but some seem to think it might work.

Louise Smith — Feb 9 2009 07:16 PM

Sorry, SS but giving away items is also illegal as the law is wriiten. If it doesn't have the correct testing and certification it is classifed as 'hazardous' waste and has to be disposed of in the correct way. Technically you will no longer be able to donate items to your schools either.
This is the law of unintended consequences. It is not just artisan toys. Motorcycles, bicycles, ski's, ice skates, rollerblades etc and all asscociated safety gear falls under the law.

Karen — Feb 10 2009 05:50 AM

What is wrong with you people? Why can't you read?

Lynn — Feb 10 2009 08:00 AM

Having ridden this CPSIA roller-coaster, worrying about and watching 85% of my indie-business get flushed down the toilet, I can honestly say I now view so-called consumer-rights and green movement organizations in a completely different way.

Their actions and pronouncements about CPSIA show they are NOT about helping people...not really. They are just self-rightous lobby huskers like all the others puffing themselves up on Capitol Hill; using a cadre of lawyers to enforce their idolatry and morality on the populace.

I will never believe another statement issued from any of these groups ever again. I will never lift a finger or pay a penny to support them or any of their so-called causes; no matter the poetic or benevolent words they're wrapped with. All will be forever filtered through their actions and idiotic prouncements during this CPSIA debacle.

There are hundreds of thousands of business owners (and now FORMER business owners), parents, artists and customers just like me. We all have friends and families that have watched and agonized with us through this mess (many of whome still don't believe it's real because they never thought the American government would go to such extremes). When they finally see that this is for real, we will be there to put the blame squarely where it belongs -- at the feet of your organization and the others who ghost-wrote this mess and pushed it through Congress.

Then our friends and family will tell their friends and family. You may have the media in your pocket, but you won't have the populace.

Wouldn't it be ironic if CPSIA caused you and all your co-hort groups to lose supporters and funding to the point of *gasp* negatively affecting your business?

Deb S — Feb 10 2009 08:00 AM

"If you already make natural toys devoid of lead and phthalates, this law will only add value to your products. "

Gosh, that sounds simple when you put it that way! Unfortunately, as of almost 8 hours ago, this *should* read: "If you can pay for testing to PROVE that you already make natural toys devoid of lead and phthalates...." I can't afford to pay hundreds of dollars to test all the different components on a tie-dyed batch of ONE onesie.

The one-year stay on enforcement only goes for dyed and undyed fabrics, so unless you've found a source for "infants' one-piece garments" that uses ONLY fabric (including the snaps), you and those others of us who are sitting with them in our inventory (including some made before the law, but now the law is retroactive. :-() are out of luck.

Yes, lead and phthalates are problems for children, for humans in general. Many building and home materials are sources of phthalates and other fumes that take years to off-gas completely and pose a far higher risk for poisoning our children than 3 snaps on the crotch of a onesie. The money spent in drafting and enforcing this turkey of a law could have been more efficiently spent going through old housing and removing lead paint and lead dust that's been poisoning children for decades, particularly in low-income areas where there are, sadly, fewer advocates for them.

Who will advocate now for the families who as of today are losing significant portions of their income simply because they cannot *prove* that their lead-free phthalate-free items really ARE safe? Who will bail them out? Who will give their kids the clothes and toys that many thrift shops are now afraid to carry due to the liability risks? Does the NRDC have any ideas?

ss — Feb 10 2009 10:00 AM

Deb S - Give it up, you're way over their head. The fact they are still promoting their untested, snap-filled, trademark infringing onesie on this very website today Feb 10, shows they don't get it. Even if they do think they fall under some exception/guidance etc., they're obviously ignoring the fact that the guidance is literally changing by the hour right now, and I doubt they realize that in the world of overarching regulation one moment you may be complying and the next a criminal...

deputyheadmistress — Feb 12 2009 01:42 PM

I no longer believe this was ever a well intentioned law with a few mistakes. I now believe the intent all along was primarily to increase the number of lawsuits the consumer group's lawyers could file, and more importantly, the settlement amounts that they could receive. That's the only way it makes sense anymore. They wouldn't be defending the indefensible otherwise.

Marina Bartelli — Feb 12 2009 02:56 PM

As a mother of three who lives within a committment to sustainability and reverence for our Earth and all its beings, I have been proud to support NRDC's laudable efforts toward what I have always believed to be our mutual goals. I have been following the CPSIA issue closely. Certainly, we would ALL benefit from reduction or better yet, elimination of phthalates and lead from consumer products. However, I feel the NRDC has acted in a misinformed, misguided and irresponsible manner regarding its support of the CPSIA, and is continuing in this vein with its current "information" about the CPSIA. While I genuinely hope for the NRDC's continued success with environmental issues and species protection, I am actively seeking other organizations with those goals to whom I can give my financial support and with a heavy heart I am withdrawing my financial support to the NRDC at this time.

Wendy — Feb 15 2009 11:58 PM

Quite clearly you are incorrect in your statement that thrifts and consignment will close their doors. Goodwill stores around the country hsve pulled all of their childrens items and thrown them in the trash, all their books.. everything because the liability is just too much for them to handle.

Is this really your idea of something that is good for our environment? Honestly if I had to choose between our landfills being filled to the brim with safe items that are needed by hard working families and my son wearing a rain coat with a zipper with a total lead content of 3000 ppm... I would choose the raincoat.

I can't believe I'm not celebrating such legislation. How wonderful to have these toxins out of our kids stuff. However, this is gone too far and is out of control. This law has turned so many people away from organizations like yours and what you are fighting for and that is another unfortunate "unintended consequence".

".. and people who shop at thrift stores shouldn't be stuck with the toxic exposures that everyone else will be protected from-so these laws apply to thrift stores too."

I guess, next we should go into people's homes and take away all their products? You seem to have a very high opinion of resale don't you:( Yes, we are all out to poison children, no matter that 90% are run by mothers or non-profits dedicated to helping their local communities.

Many state toxics law exempted retailers who UNKNOWINGLY sell products that exceed limits. This is simple. Asking us to use our best judgement and then fining us $100,000 if our judgement is as good as it should be? Huh... Oh yeah, no big deal.

Do you not understand that it is unreasonable to 1) tell people to use their best judgement in detecting lead in products that they can not afford to test? (2) treat them the same as a multi-million dollar manufacturer who produced the lead-tainted product. You think it is okay to apply the same fine to resallers who sell one product and a multi-milllion dollar manufacturer who produced millions of the product?

How do you sleep at night destroying the very people who make our communities what they are... small business people.

Fabulous, no more local business. We can call get in our cars and drive 30 miles to Walmart and buy mindless plastic junk for our children. Yes, congratulations, what an accomplishment!

I can't wait to see what you come up with next. If I survive this it won't be long I expect.