National Bankruptcy Day. Will the CPSIA effect you?
It’s possible if you manufacture or sell products for children under 12 years old. The phrase “National Bankruptcy Day” was coined by toy manufacturer Rick Woldenberg, President/CEO of Learning Resources, in reference to the new CPSIA legislation that passed on October 18, 2008. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is a direct response to the high levels of lead found in some of the children’s toys manufactured overseas. One of the more notable incidences was last year’s headline of the “Thomas the Tank Engine” trains that were found to contain high levels of lead. The public outrage over toxic chemicals being found on toys for children prompted President Bush to sign the CPSIA into law on October 18, 2008. Beginning on that date, manufacturers have 180 days to become compliant which brings us to the February 10, 2009 deadline. This is the date being referred to as “National Bankruptcy Day”. CPSIA has created quite a stir in the children’s industry as the law’s good intentions have inadvertently created numerous hardships for many small manufacturers. The deadline is fast approaching and I know there will be many small businesses caught in the crossfire. Will you be one of them? I’ve put together a FAQ below to help address some of the more common questions.
What items are required to be compliant?
All products that are marketed or could be perceived as being marketed to children under 12 years old. This is NOT limited to toys. It includes many items including clothing, jewelry, shoes, books, dinnerware, hair accessories, sunglasses, furniture, art materials, and musical instruments to name a few.
What does the testing require?
Lead content must be below 600ppm as of February 10, 2009 … then lowered to 300ppm on August 14, 2009… under 100ppm by August 14, 2011
Lead paint must pass a General Conformity Certification as having less than 600ppm for goods manufactured after November 12, 2008. Third party testing is required if the product is manufactured after December 21, 2008. These amounts will be lowered to 90ppm on August 14, 2009 and 3rd party testing will be mandated
Phthalates in children’s toys and “childcare articles” are banned. Whether this includes children’s apparel items such as footed pajamas for a child under 3 years old is unclear at this point. (Phthalates are used to make vinyl soft and flexible and can possibly be found in footwear or in this case, the rubber coatings on the non-skid bottoms of children’s footed pajamas.)
(More requirements here http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html )
What if I am not compliant?
As of February 10, 2009 non-compliant goods will be treated as Hazardous Materials and must be destroyed. The civil penalty caps have been increased from $5,000 to $100,000 for each violation.
Why refer to February 10th as “National Bankruptcy Day”?
For starters, the legislation applies to EXISTING inventories. Manufacturers commonly produce their goods 6-12 months in advance. Any inventories that are currently in production or being warehoused now must be compliant. If they are not compliant, they will be treated as “hazardous materials” and must be destroyed according to the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). For manufacturers (and retailers) of these goods, this could be devastating to companies already suffering from the current economic crisis.
Secondly, the 3rd party testing is cost prohibitive for small manufacturers. As the law is written, the finished product will need to be tested with separate tests done for each product variable. For example, my company www.Glamajama.com manufactures embellished baby onesies, outfits, and t-shirts for toddlers. Under the CPSIA testing requirements, I will need to test each design and clothing style that I offer. With 20 designs each season on 40 different style combinations, that would equal 800 separate tests that need to be done at around $300-500 a test. It would be an understatement to say that the cost of testing would be “cost prohibitive”.
Isn’t getting lead out of children’s products a good thing?
ABSOLUTELY! I don’t believe any manufacturer in the children’s industry would want lead in their products. After all, many manufacturers (myself included) started a children’s based business after having children themselves. Why would we want to endanger our own children-much less someone else’s? We can all agree that the CPSIA has many benefits for ensuring the safety of our children, however, there are flaws regarding how it is being written and implemented. For manufacturers, the problem isn’t with producing a lead-free product; the problem is proving that you have a lead-free product. . These issues must be addressed before they inadvertently bankrupt small businesses in the children’s industry.
Where can I get more information?
The best advice I can give is to educate yourself regarding the new law. There are many manufacturers out there that don’t even realize they are being affected. Also, what about the retailers that carry these products? Or the eBayers and Etsy artists? The publicists who represent the designers to the media? The sales professionals who make their living selling these goods to retailers? This legislation has many far reaching negative effects, many of which are being underestimated. I encourage you to visit these following sites for more information as well.
http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/cpsia.html Official site of the CPSIA
www.thesmartmama.com , Site by Jennifer Taggart, a Mom, Attorney, and Consultant specializing in environmental safety standards for children
http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-requirements/ Fashion Incubator
Please comment below or email me at heather@glamajama.com …I’d be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Also, you can follow me on twitter (www.twitter.com/glamajama )
December 11th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Very succint post, although I might be considered biased.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Hi Heather, I’ve tried talking about this on SUN but for the most part no one seems interested. I’d also like to leave a link to our “War Room” since we’re focusing on activism at this time.
http://www.fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=32
December 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Heather,
Great post! I’ve been doing nothing but reading about it and how it will effect what I do. My baby clothing line will die off if the law isn’t changed. I can’t imagine doing the testing for existing inventory. I have many designs on different style and fabrics. There is NO way I could justify the cost. So much hard work it just makes me ill! BTW- I’m a big fan of Austin. I’m a native Texan. Feel free to let me know anything new. I’m following you on twitter.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Great post Heather! I know we have to get the word out on this quickly.
Home-based businesses might be interested in joining the Alliance for Home-Based Children’s Businesses at http://www.homebasedalliance.ning.com
December 18th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Hi,
I just found out about this and I’m trying to make sense of it all. If someone is a retailer and sells items for children 12 & under is it their responsibility to make sure the items they are purchasing are compliant or the designer/manufacturer? Who’s at fault or should I say, who does this come down on? If it’s the retailer what should they do to protect their company (and our children)? There are so many baby boutique’s online that have so many wonderful items, one of which my good friend owns and she has heard nothing of this new law! Does she have to provide proof of some kind on each line she carries or does she direct them to the designer/manufacture that should have been compliant in the first place? Does she just take the manufature’s word for it or insist on documentation?
Surely the Retailers are not suppose to have this stuff checked and it’s the designer/manufacture’s responsibility??
Thanks!
Becca
December 18th, 2008 at 7:51 am
OOops. I think it was someone who linked to one of the videos….
December 27th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
My husband and I are struggling. We have about $60k in debt. Most of it current but 2 of our auto loans are over 90 days past due. The repo man is looking for us, I get calls all day long. This all stemed from me losing my job. I was in the mortgage industry. I was not a broker. I worker for a national company. We know where that industry is now. I have been looking for a job since Aug. No luck. We have 4 kids and we cannot make it. I was wondering if it would be easier to just file a bk. I do not want to do this because I want to pay my debt back, but we do not have the means to do so. Any advice?
January 8th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
[...] Read more about this new law HERE and HERE [...]
January 15th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Vote for my idea on the Change.gov Citizen’s Briefing Book to Protect Small Businesses from CPSIA ruling over children’s products. With enough votes, it will be presented to President-Elect Obama. I don’t know if it will work, but it’s a shot. I’m just doing my part to save handmade.
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004s2j&srPos=3&srKp=087
Protect Small Businesses. Save Handmade
April 21st, 2009 at 1:49 am
I agree tht this law was a rushed-through mistake, but I don’t think the various estimates of the testing costs that are being bandied about on the Web are accurate. They started at $300 and now I’m reading figures as high as $2,000. We got a quote on lead paint testing at $27, and it goes down if you have a bunch of stuff done at one time. Theoretically in a really worst case scenario of something will a zillion non-excempt parts it could go high, but for most products it’s not that bad.
The CSPC has published a list of things you don’t need to test, such as wood and nylon. You’re still liable if the stuff turns out in the end to contain lead or phthalates, but a little due diligence can rule that out pretty easily, and you could always test only one item if you’re worried, since if something is on the list you don’t have to test at all, so the silly retesting per product requirements don’t apply. And you don’t need to test paint for phthalates, for instance.
July 3rd, 2011 at 10:58 pm
totally dug your post
cheers!