CPSIA
#CPSIA Bloggy Carnival Time!
Last modified on 2009-02-02 16:07:56 GMT. 67 comments. Top.
We carry a cute gown and bib set for a new baby. In order to reduce the cost of 3rd party
mandatory testing for phthlates we are giving three of these sets away for the carnival. We have investigated the digestive testing and this particular set would cost $1,350.00 to test for lead and phthlates. It isn’t possible for us to absorb that kind of cost at this time and we will no longer carry these gowns or bibs.
How can you get your hands on one of these sets? Leave us a comment and tell us how you have been proactive about cpsia. Have you twittered about it? Have you posted about it? Signed petitions? Voted for change? Let us know!
Contest is open world wide and will end 11:59pm cst on 2/1/09. Winners are chosen at random. Good Luck!
For more Bloggy Giveaways click here.
With a little help from our friends on Twitter we have our winners!
5, 18, 63
#CPSIA Inventory Blow Out Sale!
Last modified on 2009-01-25 00:43:04 GMT. 10 comments. Top.
In order to help our fellow online business owners we have decided to host a Mr. Linky for cpsia. If you have put your cpsia inventory on sale or know of a business that has, we invite you to join us so that more folks can find these great items. Best of luck to you all.
As The #CPSIA Turns
Last modified on 2009-01-16 20:40:43 GMT. 4 comments. Top.
As much as this is playing out like a bad soap opera there is still more research to be done. Deadlines are approaching quickly and businesses are trying their best to sell and become compliant.
First, thank you for leaving your comments! We read and respond as much as we can.
This is the latest in the rumor mill as we know it.
- XRF has an attachment that will test for phthlates. I’m told that there are levels of chlorine that can be detected but further testing would still need to be done. I know that many people are contacting their sales reps to find out if indeed there is an attachment that will detect the chemicals.
- XRF will be approved for use after August 2009. I have yet to see anything released from cpsia regarding the use. It doesn’t mean that it will not happen it just means that no information has been released.
Why is the XRF such a big deal? It’s a big deal because it’s a cheaper method than digestive testing. Some folks are already seizing the opportunity and turning this into a business. Before you go out to rent/lease or buy this instrument (as a business) don’t forget that you have to also become ISO certified to become accredited. After all, once August hits everyone will be looking for the accredited labs not just folks that have access to the instrument. It’s that 3rd party mandatory testing issue that will hit hard.
A quick recap for you -
- February: Make sure your prior to February products are below the 600ppm for lead so you can sell them. How? Looks like a testing method will have to be used no matter what.
- February: Any new product created after February will have to have a General Compliance Certification. Testing can be digestive or scanned but not necessarily by an accredited 3rd party testing lab.
- August make sure your product is ready to meet the labeling requirements and your product will now have to be tested by a 3rd party accredited testing lab.
As for Phthlates, we will remove our gowns and bibs from our product line in order to remove the need for testing. That is the only cost effective way to comply.
I would like to mention the Class Action Law Suit spearheaded by Rachele Dressler-Sweetser owner of www.monkeybabyclothes.com represented by www.kushnerlawfirm.com. I feel that this clear evidence of how much of an impact these new regulations are having on small business. Is this the answer for change? Will this lawsuit help keeps our doors open? How long would this be tied up in the court system? I don’t have any answers.
What will happen if the XRF is allowed to be used by accredited labs after August and what kind of numbers are we talking about? Let’s look at the break down. First I spoke with
Laboratory Representative: Jim Cronin
Title: Product Ecology Manager
Email: jcronin@emt.com
Phone: 800-246-0663
Fax: 847-967-6735
Laboratory Web Site: www.emt.com
I have stayed in contact with the gentlemen from the labs I have previously obtained rates from because there are readily available. They are great guys and always willing to work with us and trade information. If you look below in previous posts in the comment section you will find rates from foreign companies. We are a U.S. manufacturer and will not be sending our products to foreign labs.
Mr. Cronin does offer the XRF testing option and quoted me $40 per scan.
If we break down this same item for example
Scan 1 - snaps since the hardware is all the same they can be grouped together $40.00
Scan 4 - color print (white, pink, purple, turquoise) $40 * 4 = $160.00
Scan 1 - color print (white) garment label $40
Scan 2 - color print (white and turquoise) $40 * 2 = $80.00
Test the fabric $40
Total Scan Testing Cost: $360.00 vs. Total Digestive Testing Cost: $675.00
I could break this down even further if all the same inks were used. For example if the same white ink is used for the garment label, the print on the front and the print on the back that decreases the cost. The problem? I have no idea if the ink is the same because our printing is not conducted “in house.”
If your printer uses the same ink for each run then you shouldn’t have a high testing cost if you rerun the same design on a garment. However, if your printer changes the brand of ink, then back to the testing lab it goes. These are just minor things to consider.
I also spoke with
Laboratory Representative: Phil Rogers
Title: Chemistry Manager
Email: progers@atslab.com
Phone: 678-444-2830
Fax: 770-424-6415
Laboratory Web Site: www.atslab.com
He does not have a quote for me yet. He gave me a ball park figure but I rather not release that until he has had ample time to speak with his team. I will release that information when I know more.
Lastly I would like to mention that formaldehyde testing is being conducted in labs already. Make sure that your asking about the use of formaldehyde in your apparel as well. It will only be a matter of time before cpsia adds that to the list. Here is a current story about Victoria’s Secret and the class action lawsuit being filed due to formaldehyde.
Another tip (special thanks to Mr. Cronin) make sure when your issuing your P.O.’s that you note on your form to your supplier:
Make sure to use materials that are CPSC compliant. If any change occurs in your process please notify us.
This ends our research thus far. We will continue to update our readers as we continue to find out more information.
Thank you for reading,
Pamela Kramer
#cpsia - Turn Around Time & More
Last modified on 2008-12-30 05:28:40 GMT. 4 comments. Top.
One commentor had brought up an interesting question that sent up a red flag. What is the turn around time for 3rd party testing? This is a question that was missed during previous research. Phil Rodgers gave a turn around time of 10 days. Again, this is only for the Happy Panda product line and you should inquire about your own turn around time for your own product. This is a very important piece of information.
Another issue we are going to face is the labeling requirements. The deadline for the new labeling requirements does not take effect until August 2009. Hopefully cpsia will give more detail in regards to how one of a kind pieces will meet the labeling demands.
Avery Dennison is already providing a solution to these labeling demands. We are not endorsing Avery but simply providing more research to manufacturers trying to meet the latest cpsia regulations. The cost will be another research topic in the future.
Many have asked how we plan to handle our product line with the upcoming changes and deadlines required by cpsia. The XRF is an instrument that we have access to and we will be able to scan our existing inventory and provide the general conformity certificate. This method will allow us to continue to offer hazardous free apparel to our customers. We will no longer offer any NEW bibs or gowns in order to remove the high costs of phthalates testing. These two steps will allow us more time to develope new product, designs, methods and labeling while we wait for more clarification.
Thank you,
Pamela Kramer
#cpsia - From: Author Bruce Wolk
Last modified on 2008-12-26 23:36:42 GMT. 0 comments. Top.
Bruce and I have worked together during the pre-publishing stage of his book. As a company listed in his upcoming book it seemed appropriate to let him know what is coming for many manufacturers of children’s products with regards to cpsia. He has asked me to post his reply to our blog and to let folks know that he is more than happy to correspond about this issue. His name is linked directly to his email address below.
“I am the author of a book entitled, Made Here, Baby! (Amacom Books-NYC), due out in late April 2009. Our Web site, www.madeherebaby.com should be “live” at the beginning of March. For more than two years, I have located and interviewed American manufacturing companies making all kinds of children’s products. The 1st edition of the book will detail 417 companies. There are many more companies and I hope to get to them as quickly as I can for a future edition. This is an extremely complex issue and I believe the answers lie somewhere in the middle. I cannot condemn our government regulators for wanting to impose tough new laws. On the other hand, American-manufacturing companies that have been safely handcrafting children’s toys for decades upon decades, should not be lumped in with multi-nationals who have knelt at the feet of the bottom-line and have cut corners to bring us hazardous toys and many other products. Make no mistake about it; a tour of the CPSC Web site will show that the vast majority of products that have been recalled have been imports. I am not “China-bashing,” nor am I flag waving, I am just stating a fact. Should there be testing of children’s toys? Of course! But it is not necessary to use a 500 pound sledge hammer in order to nail in a tack. I have interviewed American craftspeople, for example, who will go out in the woods on their farms to select an aged piece of fruit wood, then have incredible skill to turn it into an amazing toy. They will then polish and then rub that wood with a safe edible oil. The toys are more like works of art than anything else. Yet children love them. Parents and grandparents love them. These craftspeople are extremely aware of the “burden” on their shoulders to make safe toys — after all, they are your neighbors. Compare that to a children’s costume necklace made overseas using cheap labor often under brutal conditions. Many of these pieces of jewelry present choking hazards and chemical hazards. Or how about a toy made by a similar overseas company that has been “inadvertently” painted with a lead-based paint or coated with another toxic chemical? Can we not adopt a sane set of parameters? Should a small American company that is breaking its back and barely making payroll, to make extremely safe toys be thrown into the same bucket as a conglomerate that has repeatedly made cutting corners an art form? I don’t think so. Let’s all take a deep breath and truly examine the issue and all of it implications. In this awful economic time. with millions of Americans out of work, is it necessary to threaten the livlihood of small American companies that have never had any kind of safety violation, because of multi-nationals who have had millions of toys recalled?”
Bruce Wolk
#CPSIA - Mr. Sun
Last modified on 2008-12-22 16:38:00 GMT. 0 comments. Top.
Please visit Challenge and Fun, Inc. to rate this video and leave your comments.
#CPSIA - NAM CPSC Coalition
Last modified on 2008-12-21 04:40:29 GMT. 1 comment. Top.
NAM - National Association of Manufacturers have come together in a petition addressed to Todd Stevenson Director, Office of The Secretary U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The 15 page petition is well put together and I would urge everyone involved or concerned about the new regulations to read it. The following is a portion from page 5 -
“For example, a garment manufacturer may use fabrics like cotton and cotton thread with no or very low total lead to make thousands of SKUs of children’s t-shirts. Absent an exemption, the garment producer may have to test each different SKU for lead – testing the identical material thousands of times. Or, a garment maker might purchase 100,000 zippers and use the zippers in a variety of children’s apparel, perhaps involving 10,000 SKUs. Common sense tells us that it must be acceptable for garment manufacturer to rely upon the zipper manufacturer to certify compliance on all of its zippers, rather than to needlessly require the zipper and each other of the multiple components used in various garments to be tested 10,000 times because it is used in 10,000 different garments. Absent clear guidance to the contrary the statutory language could be interpreted to mandate 10,000 different tests. These are the types of practical problems that manufacturers, importers and retailers face and that have enormous cost implications at a time when we are faced with the deepest economic recession in decades. Testing costs, in turn, will be passed on to consumers.”
This petition provides more examples like this pertaining to jewelry, shoes, paper products, books and more. We need answers and I hope this petition will aid in obtaining those answers. This petition is backed by the following organizations:
American Apparel & Footwear Association
Association of American Publishers
Book Manufacturers Institute, Inc.
Fashion Jewelry Trade Association
Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers
National Retail Federation
Retail Industry Leaders Association
Printing Industries of America
Specialty Graphic Imaging Association
Toy Industry Association
You can read the petition in it’s entirety here - Petition for Rulemaking under CPSIA Section 101
Special thanks to Kathleen from Fashion-Incubator for Tweeting the petition so that we could read it.
#CPSIA - More Research
Last modified on 2008-12-18 22:45:43 GMT. 6 comments. Top.
After my extensive research with the third party labs I began to wonder what the screen printing and textile industry thought of this situation. I made a phone call to Scott Fresner from U.S. Screen Print & Inkjet Technology and spoke with Bill. This is what Mr. Fresner had to say -
“Have you contacted your ink supplier. About 20 years ago the CPS mandated plastisol or ink for children’s garment be lead free. In the last few years they have all or mostly gone to Phalate free ink because of pressure from large customers like Nike, Russell and others. You should contact Union, Rutland or whoever you are using and get their certification for the ink. At least that should remove one of the costs.
If you contact SGIA, the person to contact is Johnny Shell their technical services director. This will be old news to them and they will have answers for you.
Good luck,
Scott Fresener”
His response made me think more clearly and the required testing for lead was no longer making sense. I read on the Fashion-Incubator-
“What must be tested: Lead
All sewn products intended for use of children 12 and younger must be unit tested for lead at this time. Lobbying groups are looking for exclusions for certain categories of goods like tee shirts. Toward the end of proving lead is not a dangerous element in kid’s apparel, I have been asked to make a request of you. If you have any lead or phthalate test results from a certified laboratory, please send them to me and I’ll pass them along.”
I made that phone call to SGIA (Specialty Graphic Imaging Association) and finally spoke with Marcia Y. Kinter Vice President - Government and Business Information. She has been following along and writing her own posts.
After explaining the situation of my business and asking how the cpsia would effect me she made it clear to me that apparel does not have a definitive yes or no answer to lead testing. She instead pointed me to the issue of Phthalates and referenced this pdf. We spoke of the section that discusses what can go inside the mouth of a child under three. If you are a parent you know that list is long. As I review my own product line, Happy Panda carries two styles of garments that would go in a child’s mouth, bibs and the sleeves of a gown. I could easily remove those from my line without a problem.
We also discussed the testing for lead in zippers, buttons, etc. She shared with me that she too would like more clarification and will be writing letters of her own before the holidays.
What does this mean? To me, it means that there is hope. I realize that petitions are great but we need to speak to the leaders in organizations within our own industry. I encourage you not to substitute our findings for your own but to inquire and find out what you can as it pertains to your own product.
These posts are based on my own product line and the information that I am obtaining as I read more and speak with leaders within my own industry. I need to research more to find out where Fashion-Incubator found their information about sewn products needing to be tested for lead. <Kathleen from Fashion-Incubator has left a comment below> My posts will always contain links for you to read what I find for yourself. If you have information that can be shared please leave me a comment. What’s my next step? I’m going straight to the written ACT!
Thank you,
Pamela Kramer
#CPSIA Testing Research for Happy Panda
Last modified on 2009-01-07 14:21:58 GMT. 38 comments. Top.
Now that we understand what the new regulations mean for manufacturers it’s time to dig a little deeper. Let’s say for argument sake that there is no revision of the bill and it stands as written. Happy Panda is a private label and we use screen printing techniques on our clothing line including the garment labels.
First we need to find a testing facility and view the list of accredited testing laboratories provided by the cpsia.
- Lead Paint, 16 CFR Part 1303 (effective date 12/21/2008)
- Full-Size Cribs, 16 CFR Part 1508 (effective date 01/20/2009)
- Non Full-Size Cribs, 16 CFR Part 1509 (effective date 01/20/2009)
- Pacifiers, 16 CFR Part 1511 (effective date 01/20/2009)
- Small Parts Rule, 16 CFR Part 1501 (effective date 02/15/2009)
As a clothing manufacturer our clothing line should fall under the lead paint testing deadline because none of these other choices would make sense because we do not create cribs or pacifiers. Happy Panda is a Made in USA brand so we would not choose to send it to a testing facility outside the U.S. We narrowed down the search of the testing facilities and counted 15 accredited labs. I’ve seen postings on blogs that the costs for testing range from $100-$4,000 per test. It’s time to make some phone calls and get a real price range based on our clothing collection. First up!
| Applied Technical Services, Inc. CPSC Identification Number for this Laboratory: 1030 |
|
| Address: 1049 Triad Court City: Marietta State/Province: GA Country/Administrative Area: United States Postal Code: 30062 Laboratory Representative: Phil Rogers |
Accreditor: A2LA Accredited: 03/18/2008 Certification: 1888.02 Expiration: 01/31/2010 Scope: Scope Comments (CPSC Acceptance Date): |
Great guy and oh so helpful! I recommend speaking with him if you have questions about testing. He has been testing for several weeks for several companies. He is testing swimwear, shoes, boxes and clothing. Please note he cannot give you any legal advice on how to proceed with your own product, only the testing of your product.
The gray area here is the cpsia’s definition of “reasonable testing.” As a manufacturer it is up to me to issue my own certification that my garments do not have any traces of hazardous materials (lead or phthalates). This can only take place after I have the results from a third party lab. The third party lab does not certify you, they only give you the testing results.
There has been discussions of how third parties are to conduct their testing whether it is the use of the XRF scanner which will be changed to “digestive testing” after August 2009. Phil Rogers is conducting “digestive testing” at his facility.
He and I tried to come up with what I would consider reasonable testing for my own garments. Would it be the fabrics, the different colors, the different sizes, the snaps on our one pieces, the ink that is printed on our garments? The answer? It’s up to me. It’s my responsibility to tell the third party tester what areas to test for! The catch? If I don’t test a particular area because of the cost and hazardous materials are found that is where more trouble than I can imagine would come into play. The following rates are based on “digestive testing” NOT xrf scanning.
What is the rate? For this lab it’s $75.00 per (meaning per area I want to test). For example
Let’s take this Fabulous Snappy outfit and dissect it.
Test 1 snap since the hardware is all the same $75.00
Test the 4 color print (white, pink, purple, turquoise) $75 * 4 = $300.00
Test the 1 color print (white) garment label $75
Test the 2 color print (white and turquoise) $75 * 2 = $150.00
Test the fabric $75
Total Cost: $675.00
I would not test different size because the same components make up the same garment regardless of size. That falls under my idea of “reasonable testing.”
Now let’s talk phthalates! This is taken from the CPSIA’s site -
Three phthalates, DEHP, DBP, and BBP, have been permanently prohibited by Congress in concentration of more than 0.1% in “children’s toys” or “child care articles.” A “children’s toy” means a product intended for a child 12 years of age or younger for use when playing, and a “child care article” means a product that a child 3 and younger would use for sleeping, feeding, sucking or teething.
What is the rate for this test? $300 detects 6 types of phthalates. What is my responsibility? To tell my third party testing lab which areas to test. EACH area that is tested is $300. Do my garments need to be tested for phthalates? YES! Why? because your child could sleep in my garment, your child could put the material of the garment in their mouth! The snappy used in my previous example does not have any materials that would easily go inside the mouth. However, I do carry a gown with sleeves and those would go inside a baby’s mouth.
Now let’s take this gown and dissect it.
Test 1 fabric $75
Test 2 ink on the front $75
Test 3 ink on the garment label $75
Test 4 ink on the back $75
All the inks are the same color. Is it safe to assume it’s all the same ink? No.
Test 5 phthalates on the sleeves $300
Total Cost: $600
Let’s check this one too!
Test 1 fabric $75
Test 2 binding $75
Test 3 velcro $75
Test 4 the 2 colored inks on the front $75 * 2= $150.00
Test 5 ink on the garment label $75
Test 6 phthalates on the bottom portion of the bib $300 (it could be put in a baby’s mouth)
Total Cost: $750.00
I made the decision to post this to show how impossible it will be for me to keep my baby clothing line open. Feel free to do your own math on your own products. This is based on my understanding provided by one set of fees by one third party laboratory. What does this mean? More research!
Call #2 - Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services, Inc. - I got an answering machine.
Call #3 - Consumer Testing Laboratories, Inc. - Transferred 3 times. In the end I got an answering machine.
Call #4 - Elemental Research, LLC - Spoke to Brian Kiser, he is very nice. The rate? $50 per test. They don’t test metals and they don’t test for phthalates.
Call #5 -
| Environmental Monitoring and Technologies, Inc. (EMT) CPSC Identification Number for this Laboratory: 1050 |
|
| Address: 8100 North Austin Ave City: Morton Grove State/Province: Illinois Country/Administrative Area: United States Postal Code: 60053 Laboratory Representative: Jim Cronin |
Accreditor: A2LA Accredited: 11/18/2008 Certification: 2407.01 Expiration: 02/28/2010 Scope: Scope Comments (CPSC Acceptance Date): |
I spoke with Jim Cronin and boy does he know his testing! I can’t really wrap my brain around his rates but they could very well save my inventory. What I can tell you is that there is a $20 lead testing fee and $130 phthalates testing fee and $100 set up. That could be as little as $250 per sample. It’s all based on what your product is and my advice would be to give him a call to discuss your product. These rates change depending on LOTS of variables.
That is all the research that my time allows for today but I will continue to educate myself and I hope that this post will help others further understand the costs of the new regulations.
Thank you,
Pamela Kramer
#CPSIA - What Does It Mean?
Last modified on 2008-12-15 15:46:24 GMT. 4 comments. Top.
CPSIA is an acronym that means Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Why should you care? The cost of 3rd party testing for certification to prove products do not contain lead or other harmful matters will put many small business owners out of business.
Many reasons:
- If you are a business owner selling products for children 12 and under this will effect you.
- As a consumer you may see many of your favorite products removed from the shelves until testing takes place.
- As a consumer you may see many of your favorite online shops close because testing rates are too high.
- As a consumer you may see an increase in price for products geared toward children 12 and under. The expense of testing will most likely be passed on to the consumer.
- As a WAHM or SAHD that crafts or decorates garments, jewelry or anything for children 12 and under this will effect you.
- Sites such as Wishpot, Etsy and ArtFire or any other Indie hosted sites may lose products and vendors.
- Many of the moms who review products will be effected.
This is going to be a chain reaction that will stretch far and wide as of February 10, 2009 (Now known as National Bankruptcy Day). I personally cringe at the thought of what could happen to my own product line. It is my responsibility to stay informed and research the latest updates. You will find many store owners already blogging about it. There are posts, forums, groups and more spreading the word. Rather than repeat what everyone else is saying I will just list the most effective links that I have found so far. I welcome you to comment here and leave more links that you might know about.
CPSIA Petition for Apparel Industry
What Needs To Be Tested?
ETSY’s open letter
VOTE @ Change.org
5 Minutes For Mom
Startup Nation
Cheeky & Swank
Fashion-Incubator
Moon Fly Kids
The Diary of a Poshpreneur
The Smart Mama
Ohana Mama
Forums:
Social Ning
Toy Industry
Craig’s List
Squidoo
