Jump to:
ZRecs Home |
Z Recommends |
PRIZEY |
The Tranquil Parent |
Punnybop |
The ZRecs Guide to Safer Children's Products
Get Z Recommends posts and links delivered free via -
-
As seen in
Carter’s tagless rashes update: Company admits some clothing still not Oko-Tex certified
By Jeremiah | October 12, 2009 | 18 comments / Join the conversation!
Adlanna, in her Fall 07 Carter's onesie. Photo from the blog Carter's Tagless Nightmares.
The tagless labels in Carter's infant and toddler clothing have been identified as the cause of rashes among infants that range from mild discomfort to weeks-long, "earlobes to ankles" rashes that are very unpleasant to look at, let alone imagine our own children suffering through. Carter's ongoing position has been that the problem affects only a small percentage of wearers; that reactions to the company's clothing are confined to their Fall 07 line, for which they have been processing refunds in the hundreds and even thousands of dollars from worried parents for almost a year, no receipt required; and that they strive to produce products that meet the most stringent quality and safety standards possible. While it's impossible for us to quantify the number of children who have suffered from a reaction, an argument against the second claim from Kristen O'Donnell (one of the several frustrated parents who have also taken their story to the TV news offered some unexpected insight into the third claim as well.
Both Carter's Senior Director of Consumer Affairs Janell Cleveland and CEO Michael Casey told ZRecs in October 2008 that they had switched to new Öko-Tex certified Avery-Dennison labels for their Spring 09 line. We trust Öko-Tex certification - it's a rigorous testing standard that proves that a material is free of all kinds of potentially harmful and irritating stuff, including not only phthalates and formaldehyde, but potentially irritating dyes and heavy metals. It is expensive, exhaustive, and constantly evolving. To us, this meant that Carter's had found a way to definitively end whatever exposure was causing whatever portion of their customers to break out in irritating rashes and, on occasion, dangerous secondary infections.
But then, several weeks ago, we got an email from Kristen because, she said, her son Jack had developed full-body rashes that persisted for a month from Carter's clothing, but had never been exposed to their Fall 07 line. When we followed up with her on the phone, things got even more interesting.
Kristen told us that a Carter's representative had stated to her that although she wasn't at liberty to name Carter's label suppliers, the company currently gets its labels from four different ones - Avery-Dennison was just one of them. We followed up with Carter's directly, because customer service reps say a lot of crazy things. Janell Cleveland herself told us that yes, in fact, they do use four different suppliers.
"You said you had switched to Avery-Dennison's ECO Heat Transfer Labels," I said. "That's what we wrote."
Yes, Cleveland said, they had - from the other Avery-Dennison labels. But that was just for those labels - they still used three other U.S.-based suppliers.
Let me interject here with the text that appears on Carter's website, in the "Message from Carter's" the company published to inform consumers about issues with their tagless labels.
Please reread the first sentence, and then that last paragraph again, and firm up, for yourself, what that means. Now, back to me and Janell:
Me: "Are those other three suppliers' labels Öko-Tex certified?"
No, Cleveland said, but "we hold all of our label suppliers up to the same high standards."
"But you're not," I said. "You're not holding them to the Öko-Tex standard, which is a third-party standard that tests and demonstrates that materials are free of the items on their list. So you may be holding them to some standard, but you aren't holding them to as high a standard."
"We wouldn't describe it that way," Cleveland said.
Upon further interrogation, Cleveland stated that "around ninety percent" of Carter's garments used the new Avery-Dennison labels, and thus that same 90% are Öko-Tex certified. Put another way, ten percent of their garments use the same ingredients they did in 2007. Carter's garment labels use less ink than they did in 2007 - this change came with their Spring 2008 line - but examples like Jack's challenge the claim that this has solved the problem. Carter's has never admitted to knowledge of what ingredient in any of their labels was causing reactions among children, and as Carter's has stated repeatedly to us that they have identified no correlation between a particular label vendor, country of origin, or garment type and the rate of infant reactions to their labels, there is, categorically, no defensible position from which to claim that the problem has been eliminated. That's what the Öko-Tex certification was supposed to do, and that, in our opinion, is why they positioned that change front and center, despite the fact that it was not being implemented across their entire line.
And that, sadly, is why this story is not yet over for some of the parents who, a full year after our original report on Carter's tagless irritants, buy and put their babies in newly-purchased Carter's clothing.
Of course, the story isn't over for Carter's, either. They're in the middle of a class-action lawsuit which, plaintiff's lawyers have been careful to point out, was not filed using language that would confine it to Carter's Fall 07 line. I asked Cleveland about Kristen O'Donnell. "We believe that one of her children may have worn one garment from the Fall 07 line," she said. "Sometimes it's unclear from what the parents have been able to identify what a child has been exposed to, and we believe her child may have worn an item from the Fall 07 line and then garments from the later line. But we believe in our conversations with Kristen we have been able to clear up the situation for her and that she is satisfied with how we have resolved the situation."
I followed up with Kristen over email and asked her if this rang true to her.
"Carter's has been well aware from the very first moment I spoke with Lisa Schweda in Consumer Affairs that the clothing both of my twins have worn has the new label design, and not the older label," she wrote in a lengthy response. "I am very well aware by now what the label design from the Fall '07 line looks like, and just to be perfectly clear, my children have never worn any clothes with this older label. Simply put, we have never owned and my children have never worn any article of clothing from Carter's that has that distinct older design. I have photographed every piece of Carter's clothing that I owned with close-ups of the labels, and it is quite clear we are only talking about a reaction to the newer 'stenciled' design."
Carter's has since agreed to pay Jack's medical expenses, but Kristen isn't finished yet. She wants to know what's in the labels, and it's not because she's idly curious.
"I would like Carter's to reveal to me, and the millions of other consumers, which chemicals are being used in their newer labels so that I can work to avoid Jack's future contact with these harmful materials," she wrote to us. "My alternative would be to go on a wild goose chase trying to identify anything Jack may be allergic to through painful and tedious allergy testing, which may not reveal his particular sensitivity; Jack has never had as much as a diaper rash prior to this incident, or afterward."
Kristen's desire is no doubt shared by other parents trying to protect their children from further exposures. Our own experience with monitoring chemicals in children's products gives us the nagging feeling that these "reactives" might be canaries in the coal mine - cases of hypersensitivity to chemicals that no one should be exposed to. Every time a commenter writes in that their child was fortunate enough not to have a reaction to Carter's clothing, we have to wonder: Are they really comfortable knowing that their baby was exposed to, and probably absorbed, some of the same ingredients that caused these reactions? Would that comfort level shift at all if the ingredient causing the problems had a name?
Kristen was kind enough to send us, at our request, two of the garments she suspected as being likely sources of the irritant for her son Jack. Both of them are clearly post-Fall 07 garments. ZRecs has also purchased three new garments from the Fall 07 line, with tags still attached, from eBay, the place where forgotten merchandise goes for a new lease on life.
Our job now is to leverage the expertise of our contacts and of testing labs we could work with to narrow down just what we should be doing with these product samples. Product testing costs money that no individual parent, however concerned, is likely to be able to spare. But what if we pooled it? What if parents - both those who have been directly affected by products like Carter's onesies, through the exposures of their children, and those who simply have an interest in seeing the truth come out - shared the costs of testing?
We'll be working up a proposal in the next couple of weeks, and present it to readers for consideration. If you want the testing done, we'll be prepared to make it happen.
Both Carter's Senior Director of Consumer Affairs Janell Cleveland and CEO Michael Casey told ZRecs in October 2008 that they had switched to new Öko-Tex certified Avery-Dennison labels for their Spring 09 line. We trust Öko-Tex certification - it's a rigorous testing standard that proves that a material is free of all kinds of potentially harmful and irritating stuff, including not only phthalates and formaldehyde, but potentially irritating dyes and heavy metals. It is expensive, exhaustive, and constantly evolving. To us, this meant that Carter's had found a way to definitively end whatever exposure was causing whatever portion of their customers to break out in irritating rashes and, on occasion, dangerous secondary infections.
But then, several weeks ago, we got an email from Kristen because, she said, her son Jack had developed full-body rashes that persisted for a month from Carter's clothing, but had never been exposed to their Fall 07 line. When we followed up with her on the phone, things got even more interesting.
Kristen told us that a Carter's representative had stated to her that although she wasn't at liberty to name Carter's label suppliers, the company currently gets its labels from four different ones - Avery-Dennison was just one of them. We followed up with Carter's directly, because customer service reps say a lot of crazy things. Janell Cleveland herself told us that yes, in fact, they do use four different suppliers.
"You said you had switched to Avery-Dennison's ECO Heat Transfer Labels," I said. "That's what we wrote."
Yes, Cleveland said, they had - from the other Avery-Dennison labels. But that was just for those labels - they still used three other U.S.-based suppliers.
Let me interject here with the text that appears on Carter's website, in the "Message from Carter's" the company published to inform consumers about issues with their tagless labels.
What is in the Fall 2007 labels?
We purchase the tag-less labels directly from multiple U.S.-based label suppliers. The suppliers are aware of our quality and safety standards and have provided us with third-party test results that indicate that the labels are in compliance with all existing safety and quality standards. The label contains the standard ink formulation used by many companies on literally billions of garments in the United States. The label is applied by means of a standard screen transfer, similar to an iron-on screen print, the same type of technology used for many years and on many types of garments. The specific ingredients and relative percentages of the ink formula for the label vary depending on the colors and style of the particular label, but it is our understanding from the manufacturers that it is generally the same type of ink that has been used on clothing for many years ranging from children's clothing to adult intimate apparel.
It appears that a very small percentage of children can be allergic to one or more ingredients in the labels. The solid, rather than stenciled, background on the Fall 2007 labels appears to have produced a more pronounced and noticeable reaction among those children who are most allergic to the ink. For stylistic reasons, Carter’s has switched back to the smaller labels for our Spring and Fall 2008 line.
Starting with the Spring 2009 line, we changed to new Halo-Free ECO Heat Transfer labels that meet Öko-Tex 100 Class 1 requirements. These requirements serve as the “gold standard” for international testing and certification for textile manufacturing to ensure that textile products are free from harmful levels of more than 100 substances that are known to be detrimental to human health. The certification is voluntary, is conducted by independent third-party laboratories, and requires annual testing to remain valid. The new labels are made up of water-based inks, are PVC-free and contain no Azo dyes, no formaldehyde, heavy metals or vinyl products. Additional information about the new labels can be found online at Avery Dennison’s (our primary supplier of labels) Web site or at the Öko-Tex 100 Web site.
Please reread the first sentence, and then that last paragraph again, and firm up, for yourself, what that means. Now, back to me and Janell:
Me: "Are those other three suppliers' labels Öko-Tex certified?"
No, Cleveland said, but "we hold all of our label suppliers up to the same high standards."
"But you're not," I said. "You're not holding them to the Öko-Tex standard, which is a third-party standard that tests and demonstrates that materials are free of the items on their list. So you may be holding them to some standard, but you aren't holding them to as high a standard."
"We wouldn't describe it that way," Cleveland said.
Upon further interrogation, Cleveland stated that "around ninety percent" of Carter's garments used the new Avery-Dennison labels, and thus that same 90% are Öko-Tex certified. Put another way, ten percent of their garments use the same ingredients they did in 2007. Carter's garment labels use less ink than they did in 2007 - this change came with their Spring 2008 line - but examples like Jack's challenge the claim that this has solved the problem. Carter's has never admitted to knowledge of what ingredient in any of their labels was causing reactions among children, and as Carter's has stated repeatedly to us that they have identified no correlation between a particular label vendor, country of origin, or garment type and the rate of infant reactions to their labels, there is, categorically, no defensible position from which to claim that the problem has been eliminated. That's what the Öko-Tex certification was supposed to do, and that, in our opinion, is why they positioned that change front and center, despite the fact that it was not being implemented across their entire line.
And that, sadly, is why this story is not yet over for some of the parents who, a full year after our original report on Carter's tagless irritants, buy and put their babies in newly-purchased Carter's clothing.
Of course, the story isn't over for Carter's, either. They're in the middle of a class-action lawsuit which, plaintiff's lawyers have been careful to point out, was not filed using language that would confine it to Carter's Fall 07 line. I asked Cleveland about Kristen O'Donnell. "We believe that one of her children may have worn one garment from the Fall 07 line," she said. "Sometimes it's unclear from what the parents have been able to identify what a child has been exposed to, and we believe her child may have worn an item from the Fall 07 line and then garments from the later line. But we believe in our conversations with Kristen we have been able to clear up the situation for her and that she is satisfied with how we have resolved the situation."
I followed up with Kristen over email and asked her if this rang true to her.
"Carter's has been well aware from the very first moment I spoke with Lisa Schweda in Consumer Affairs that the clothing both of my twins have worn has the new label design, and not the older label," she wrote in a lengthy response. "I am very well aware by now what the label design from the Fall '07 line looks like, and just to be perfectly clear, my children have never worn any clothes with this older label. Simply put, we have never owned and my children have never worn any article of clothing from Carter's that has that distinct older design. I have photographed every piece of Carter's clothing that I owned with close-ups of the labels, and it is quite clear we are only talking about a reaction to the newer 'stenciled' design."
Carter's has since agreed to pay Jack's medical expenses, but Kristen isn't finished yet. She wants to know what's in the labels, and it's not because she's idly curious.
"I would like Carter's to reveal to me, and the millions of other consumers, which chemicals are being used in their newer labels so that I can work to avoid Jack's future contact with these harmful materials," she wrote to us. "My alternative would be to go on a wild goose chase trying to identify anything Jack may be allergic to through painful and tedious allergy testing, which may not reveal his particular sensitivity; Jack has never had as much as a diaper rash prior to this incident, or afterward."
Kristen's desire is no doubt shared by other parents trying to protect their children from further exposures. Our own experience with monitoring chemicals in children's products gives us the nagging feeling that these "reactives" might be canaries in the coal mine - cases of hypersensitivity to chemicals that no one should be exposed to. Every time a commenter writes in that their child was fortunate enough not to have a reaction to Carter's clothing, we have to wonder: Are they really comfortable knowing that their baby was exposed to, and probably absorbed, some of the same ingredients that caused these reactions? Would that comfort level shift at all if the ingredient causing the problems had a name?
Kristen was kind enough to send us, at our request, two of the garments she suspected as being likely sources of the irritant for her son Jack. Both of them are clearly post-Fall 07 garments. ZRecs has also purchased three new garments from the Fall 07 line, with tags still attached, from eBay, the place where forgotten merchandise goes for a new lease on life.
Our job now is to leverage the expertise of our contacts and of testing labs we could work with to narrow down just what we should be doing with these product samples. Product testing costs money that no individual parent, however concerned, is likely to be able to spare. But what if we pooled it? What if parents - both those who have been directly affected by products like Carter's onesies, through the exposures of their children, and those who simply have an interest in seeing the truth come out - shared the costs of testing?
We'll be working up a proposal in the next couple of weeks, and present it to readers for consideration. If you want the testing done, we'll be prepared to make it happen.
Carter’s Tagless Update: Have eco-friendly labels reduced infant skin rashes?
By Jeremiah | August 18, 2009 | 3 comments / Join the conversation!
After a period of silence, we have been getting some new reports from readers of Carter's brand infant and toddler clothing causing skin rashes in an echo of the issue we reported on a year ago. The series of investigative posts by Z Recommends culminated in an advisory issued by Carter's and the CPSC, the widespread return of Fall 2008 and earlier Carter's clothing to the company for reimbursement, and an interview with Carter's CEO.
Ultimately, Carter's promised consumers that for their Spring 2009 line they were switching from one type of inked label to another, and the new one would be an "Eco" label that uses water-based inks and has "no harmful substances" (label-maker Avery Dennison's words); more critically, it conforms to Öko-Tex 100 standards for infant skin contact. They are free of Azo dyes, formaldehyde, heavy metals and vinyl (PVC) products.
But then, over the last few weeks, we started hearing from consumers whose children were experiencing the same kinds of painful rashes we heard about last summer. It was difficult to identify over email which season of Carter's clothing they were experiencing these problems with, so we decided the best route was to call Carter's to confirm that what they had told us would happen actually had happened, to try to get some images of the different tag styles so parents would have a good chance of identifying problem garments themselves, and to see if there were any new developments that might impact their Fall 2009 line, which should be hitting stores right about... now.
Carter's spokesperson Janell Cleveland suggested any new bump in reports might be linked to parents getting new sizes of baby clothes out of storage for reuse, because the company had in fact switched to the new, Öko-Tex approved labels for their Spring 2009 line, and were using them for their Fall 2009 line as well.
Here are images of the labels. ZRecs advises you not to buy Carter's children's clothing from Fall 2008 or earlier lines, new or used. You may be surprised how long these items could be on some store shelves, and should check any hand-me-downs as well. Of course, there is a chance that your child will not have any adverse reaction to the labels at all - many children don't. But to us, a possible skin irritant may indicate an exposure to something no child should be in close contact with.
Cleveland stated that she is unaware of Carter's having received any uptick of consumer calls or requests for reimbursements beyond what they would consider normal, but that Carter's standard customer service policy applies - if a consumer has a problem, they can call Carter's and they will work to resolve it, up to and including refunding consumers for purchased clothing and paying for return shipping.
If you have a child who has suffered from significant skin rashes due to Carter's clothing, compare the labels of the items in question with the photographs above. If the label matches the second photo, call Carter's at 888-782-9548, and comment here to tell us how they resolved your issue. If you can positively identify that the label was of the type shown in the first photo - the labels being used now, which are widely regarded as safer - call us at 979-220-0395.
Thanks to Carter's for their continued cooperation and interest in this story.
Ultimately, Carter's promised consumers that for their Spring 2009 line they were switching from one type of inked label to another, and the new one would be an "Eco" label that uses water-based inks and has "no harmful substances" (label-maker Avery Dennison's words); more critically, it conforms to Öko-Tex 100 standards for infant skin contact. They are free of Azo dyes, formaldehyde, heavy metals and vinyl (PVC) products.
But then, over the last few weeks, we started hearing from consumers whose children were experiencing the same kinds of painful rashes we heard about last summer. It was difficult to identify over email which season of Carter's clothing they were experiencing these problems with, so we decided the best route was to call Carter's to confirm that what they had told us would happen actually had happened, to try to get some images of the different tag styles so parents would have a good chance of identifying problem garments themselves, and to see if there were any new developments that might impact their Fall 2009 line, which should be hitting stores right about... now.
Carter's spokesperson Janell Cleveland suggested any new bump in reports might be linked to parents getting new sizes of baby clothes out of storage for reuse, because the company had in fact switched to the new, Öko-Tex approved labels for their Spring 2009 line, and were using them for their Fall 2009 line as well.
Here are images of the labels. ZRecs advises you not to buy Carter's children's clothing from Fall 2008 or earlier lines, new or used. You may be surprised how long these items could be on some store shelves, and should check any hand-me-downs as well. Of course, there is a chance that your child will not have any adverse reaction to the labels at all - many children don't. But to us, a possible skin irritant may indicate an exposure to something no child should be in close contact with.
Safer labels: Spring 2009 and later
Most irritating labels: Fall 2007 and earlier
Edited 10-12-09 to add: Possible reports of irritation: 2008 labels
What to do if your child has a reaction
Cleveland stated that she is unaware of Carter's having received any uptick of consumer calls or requests for reimbursements beyond what they would consider normal, but that Carter's standard customer service policy applies - if a consumer has a problem, they can call Carter's and they will work to resolve it, up to and including refunding consumers for purchased clothing and paying for return shipping.
If you have a child who has suffered from significant skin rashes due to Carter's clothing, compare the labels of the items in question with the photographs above. If the label matches the second photo, call Carter's at 888-782-9548, and comment here to tell us how they resolved your issue. If you can positively identify that the label was of the type shown in the first photo - the labels being used now, which are widely regarded as safer - call us at 979-220-0395.
Thanks to Carter's for their continued cooperation and interest in this story.
Added to our Carter’s post
By Jeremiah | November 15, 2008 | 0 comments / Join the conversation!
Sometimes it takes a day to put two and two together. Added this to our Carter's interview:
One possible cause for a rapid shift towards the new labels, at least among producers of children's garments, is the onset of a federal ban on three phthalates and interim restrictions on three others. Given that the "ECO" labels are advertised as PVC-free, and PVC frequently contains phthalates as a softener, it seems entirely plausible that Avery-Dennison, as well as their clients, are moving rapidly to ensure they stay in compliance with the evolving regulations in this area, and that the tags that have been used by Carter's and other brands up to this point have contained them. Phthalates are the suspected chemical of concern logged in ZRecs Guide listings Carter's infant apparel on September 28, 2008. [Link]
Categories:
Carter's
Carter’s, on the record: An interview with Michael Casey, CEO
By Jeremiah | November 14, 2008 | 10 comments / Join the conversation!
Michael Casey, CEO of Carter's, Inc.
Michael Casey, the CEO of Carter's, Inc. was kind enough to grant us an interview on the evolving story of children's allergic reactions to some of the company's tagless labels. We used the opportunity to get official answers to a lot of questions that had been bothering us since we started investigating the issue back in August.
Casey has been at Carter's for 15 years, and was the company's CFO before being appointed to the CEO post this summer. He warned me at the beginning of our phone conversation that there might be areas he would be less able to discuss given the lawsuit filed against the company earlier this week, but there were few questions he avoided answering, and we appreciated his frankness. Almost everything you're about to read here has not been published anywhere before.
Casey stated that Carter's infant garments have had tagless labels since "the end of 2005." I asked him if there was a cost savings involved in switching from cloth tags to tagless labels. "That's not why we made the change," he said. "We made the change because consumers overall find tagless garments to be more comfortable." Janell Cleveland, Carter's Senior Director of Consumer Affairs, later told us that while there is a cost savings associated with shifting from cloth to synthetic tags, tagless labels are actually more expensive than either type of tag.
I suggested to Casey that a decline in fabric tag quality and a shift from natural fabrics to synthetics for clothing tags may have caused the problem tagless labeling attempted to solve, but Casey did not agree with this assessment. "It isn't consistent with my experience," he said.
Carter's maintains that the problem is isolated to its Fall 07 clothing, and although we have received a few reports of consumers whose infants have had reactions to other lines, the vast majority of the reports we have seen do implicate the Fall 07 line. For that release of the company's infant clothing, Carter's redesigned its tag to have a solid background with a relatively large imprint. When it came time to tinker with products for the next line (Spring 08) they switched to a design with a clear background and much less ink.
One key to understanding how the allergic reaction issue evolved at Carter's is an awareness of their product development and release cycle. Casey was unable to nail down exactly when the company received its first complaints about the labels, but Cleveland has since informed us that the company began receiving complaints in November 2007. "The new Spring 2008 label (the design with less ink) actually started being used in production the first week of June 2007," she wrote in an email to Z Recommends. "We received our first contact about a rash early in November 2007. The thing that most people don’t realize is that the Fall 2007 product was shipping from May 2007 through September 2007."
In other words, the company had already redesigned the label before a single case of skin irritation had been reported. Casey affirmed that the change in design from the Fall 07 line had nothing to do with any complaints that might have been received about irritation. "The label for Spring 08 was not changed for any reason other than aesthetics," he said.
Casey also offered up the previously undisclosed name of the manufacturer of their labels, Avery-Dennison, a well-known brand among households for its paper labels and a leading manufacturer of heat-transfer labels. Casey said Avery tagless labels are used in "billions" of garments each year, in clothing both for children and for adults. "In using these labels, we are in very good company," he said.
But there's another chapter to this story, and only time will tell if it is relevant to its final telling.
A crucial element that was missing from this story prior to our interview is that Carter's has since switched its label formulation, specifically for the Spring 09 line, which should be hitting stores soon. Through their Fall 08 clothing lines, Carter's used the supplier's Halo-Free Heat Transfers; for the Spring 09 line, they are using Halo-Free ECO Heat Transfers. (The term "halo-free" refers to the fact that both labels lack a bordering translucent "stamp" area and only show printing where ink is desired.)
The exact chemical formulations and ingredients of such products are carefully guarded trade secrets, and may not even be available to the companies that make use of them. Where technical data is absent, however, marketing materials can provide some clues. The benefits of this "ECO" label type, as outlined in Avery-Dennison's product brochure, include:
It may be tempting to simply invert these bullet points to garner a "shadow list" of descriptors of the company's non-"ECO" labels. The implications, of course, are that the standard Halo-Free labels may not use water-based inks, and may contain PVC, Azo dyes, formaldehyde, heavy metals, or vinyl products; there are no claims in the standard Halo-Free Heat Transfer's label that it is free of any of these things. But in fact, this is not sufficient to establish with certainty that these standard labels do contain any of those specific substances, although the possibility is there; since they were likely not even submitted for potential certification under the strict Öko-Tex 100 standard, there is a chance that even Avery may not know exactly what is in them, beyond what the government (using ASTM standards) requires them to test for.
Cleveland stated that independent testing of the labels conducted by Carter's confirmed that the standard labels did not exceed any ASTM limits for Azo dyes, heavy metals, or lead, and had "never contained formaldehyde."
Cleveland stated to Z Recommends that the shift from one formulation to another was consistent with a general trend within the industry to improve on previous formulations of tagless labels. She could not comment on whether Avery-Dennison or Carter's first suggested the switch, but said she believed that Avery-Dennison planned to eventually phase out the old style of labels in favor of this alternative formulation. "Just as we're always working to innovate to make our products safer, they are too," she said.
One possible cause for a rapid shift towards the new labels, at least among producers of children's garments, is the onset of a federal ban on three phthalates and interim restrictions on three others. Given that the "ECO" labels are advertised as PVC-free, and PVC frequently contains phthalates as a softener, it seems entirely plausible that Avery-Dennison, as well as their clients, are moving rapidly to ensure they stay in compliance with the evolving regulations in this area, and that the tags that have been used by Carter's and other brands up to this point have contained them. Phthalates are the suspected chemical of concern logged in ZRecs Guide listings of Carter's infant apparel on September 28, 2008.
Interestingly, Öko-Tex certified materials are guaranteed to be free of even more things not mentioned in Avery's marketing materials, but equally relevant to the potential problems with Carter's Fall 07 clothing: namely, allergy-inducing dyes, pesticides, and preservative phenols. From Wikipedia:
When injury reports began surfacing in November 2007, company representatives fell back on Carter's standard policy of accepting returns directly from consumers who had any complaints about a product that could not be resolved by other means. This strategy has guided their response as the problem has grown in scope over the subsequent year, and remains as the recourse they provide to consumers. Casey stated that the company contacted the Consumer Products Safety Commission about the issue after receiving "some portion of 10 complaints," and kept in close contact with them as the number of cases increased. Almost a year later, on October 24, 2008 the company released an advisory through the CPSC for the Fall 07 line and added a page about the issue to their company website. By that time they had been contacted by approximately 400 consumers about the issue.
Casey described the process of classifying the condition by showing photographs to physicians. "The first physician we showed the photographs to, he took one look at them and said, 'That's contact dermatitis,'" Casey said. "It wasn't even the kind of thing he had to look up."
Casey confirmed that the company has lab tested not only a variety of sample garments from their Fall 2007 line, but multiple samples received from parents whose children had suffered irritation. "There was nothing in that label we could identify that could cause that kind of reaction," he said, "which led us to conclude that this is a rare allergic reaction in some babies with highly sensitive skin." He noted that families of multiple children, including one with triplets, reported irritation by some but not all of their infants from the same clothing.
He estimated that the company has been contacted by roughly 800 consumers regarding the issue, although some of them were calling without an actual medical case (i.e. they had purchased but not yet used the garments, or were calling for information or return although their children had not had a reaction). We discussed the CPSC advisory and I mentioned some consumers' call for a recall. "Since we launched, the level of inquiries on this... even now, has not been significant in terms of its relation to the total number of our garments," he said. "It is some fraction of 1% of the garments from the Fall 07 line."
The difference between contact dermatitis and a "chemical burn," as many parents (and Z Recommends) had reported as a possible characterization of the wounds, appears not to be one of degree, but of universality of effect. "A chemical burn is something that would affect virtually all people in the same way," Casey said. Something that prompts a reaction in a small subset of individuals, "even the more extreme cases" - i.e. those with seepage, blistering, and persistent effects - are still properly classified as contact dermatitis. I consented to this but observed that the reason the term had been used was because dermatitis is typically associated with something less severe, and parents were grasping for terminology that better communicated the degree of harm. Carter's representatives asked us to stress that the company relied on physicians to make these assessments.
Casey affirmed that Carter's is confident of the safety of its current label formulation, and the switch for the Spring 09 line does suggest to us that the newest Carter's garments, when available, will be far less likely to trigger an allergic response. We will post an image of the label style or other identifying features of these clothes on Z Recommends as soon as we have them. Casey also apologized for the problems the Fall 07 labels had caused for consumers and emphasized the aggressiveness of the company's return program and their decision to issue an advisory, which "has helped bring in a lot of calls" from parents who may not have known what was causing the irritation.
"This has been a major focus of a lot of good people inside and outside this company, and we're very sorry for the problems some of our customers have had. We intend to continue to work very hard to regain the trust of people who have had this disappointing experience with Carter's products."
I'd like to close by revisiting the four points we made about this evolving case in our last big bundle of fresh reporting on the Carter's situation. In that piece I observed that there were four major areas we weren't satisfied were conclusively addressed. In brief, they were:
As journalists, we believe that item #1 is still a nagging issue. Estimating how many children are affected by this based on how many have reported in to Carter's or the CPSC or both is very messy. I don't think we have a complete picture on this and don't know how or when we'll have one.
Our data for items #3 and 4 is still highly anecdotal; we have received a few reports of problems with Carter's later lines, and regarding items from other brands, but we rarely know if children may have been previously exposed to Carter's Fall 07 items prior to other exposures, or what the relative levels of problems with these other item types are.
Item #2 was, I believe, a misuse of technical terms in an attempt to describe the seriousness of a problem; the fact may be that we (and others) just needed a wake-up call regarding how broad a range of effects and levels of suffering the term "contact dermatitis" encompasses. The fact that such skin irritation can lead to other problems (including a staph infection and hospitalization, in the case of Ava Kunze) do not seem to affect this strict technical classification. Z Recommends apologizes for the error.
The company's refund program is open to parents with Carter's infant clothing from any season, new or used. Call Carter's at 1-888-282-4674 and they will send you postage-paid packaging based on the number of items you have to return.
Casey estimated that customers who could provide receipts could get a refund within a week. "Then, it's a very simple process," he said, "but nobody keeps receipts for a year." Without a receipt, company representatives had to look up the specific items to "research what the highest price paid for the garments was," which he described as a still-straightforward process but one requiring more time. He stated that returns "should be" processed within two weeks without a receipt. (Our presumption is that this means two weeks from the point when the company has received the garments from the customer, leading up to the mailing of a check; factor in the shipping cycles and I suspect you're looking at a total time of about a month to get your reimbursement.
We also encourage consumers who have experienced problems to continue reporting these cases to the CPSC so the agency can have the best possible understanding of the scope of the issue. They can be reached at 800-638-2772 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.
Additionally, if you receive a reimbursement that is not as much as you expected or believe you are owed (as some readers have reported in comments on this blog), we encourage you to call the company back to ask them to address it. If the customer service department can't satisfy you, Michael Casey expressed an interest in our interview in having calls escalated to his office if necessary to ensure any problems are resolved.
Like getting real reporting on consumer issues that affect your children? Subscribe to Z Recommends (via email or RSS) and The Tranquil Parent (also available via email or RSS) and you won't miss any of our investigative reporting, including updates on the Carter's tagless apparel story, as well as getting unbiased product reviews, consumer tips, and down-to-earth parenting and family advice.
Casey has been at Carter's for 15 years, and was the company's CFO before being appointed to the CEO post this summer. He warned me at the beginning of our phone conversation that there might be areas he would be less able to discuss given the lawsuit filed against the company earlier this week, but there were few questions he avoided answering, and we appreciated his frankness. Almost everything you're about to read here has not been published anywhere before.
Going tagless
Casey stated that Carter's infant garments have had tagless labels since "the end of 2005." I asked him if there was a cost savings involved in switching from cloth tags to tagless labels. "That's not why we made the change," he said. "We made the change because consumers overall find tagless garments to be more comfortable." Janell Cleveland, Carter's Senior Director of Consumer Affairs, later told us that while there is a cost savings associated with shifting from cloth to synthetic tags, tagless labels are actually more expensive than either type of tag.
I suggested to Casey that a decline in fabric tag quality and a shift from natural fabrics to synthetics for clothing tags may have caused the problem tagless labeling attempted to solve, but Casey did not agree with this assessment. "It isn't consistent with my experience," he said.
Design changes
Carter's maintains that the problem is isolated to its Fall 07 clothing, and although we have received a few reports of consumers whose infants have had reactions to other lines, the vast majority of the reports we have seen do implicate the Fall 07 line. For that release of the company's infant clothing, Carter's redesigned its tag to have a solid background with a relatively large imprint. When it came time to tinker with products for the next line (Spring 08) they switched to a design with a clear background and much less ink.
One key to understanding how the allergic reaction issue evolved at Carter's is an awareness of their product development and release cycle. Casey was unable to nail down exactly when the company received its first complaints about the labels, but Cleveland has since informed us that the company began receiving complaints in November 2007. "The new Spring 2008 label (the design with less ink) actually started being used in production the first week of June 2007," she wrote in an email to Z Recommends. "We received our first contact about a rash early in November 2007. The thing that most people don’t realize is that the Fall 2007 product was shipping from May 2007 through September 2007."
In other words, the company had already redesigned the label before a single case of skin irritation had been reported. Casey affirmed that the change in design from the Fall 07 line had nothing to do with any complaints that might have been received about irritation. "The label for Spring 08 was not changed for any reason other than aesthetics," he said.
Casey also offered up the previously undisclosed name of the manufacturer of their labels, Avery-Dennison, a well-known brand among households for its paper labels and a leading manufacturer of heat-transfer labels. Casey said Avery tagless labels are used in "billions" of garments each year, in clothing both for children and for adults. "In using these labels, we are in very good company," he said.
But there's another chapter to this story, and only time will tell if it is relevant to its final telling.
The switch to a "greener" tag
A crucial element that was missing from this story prior to our interview is that Carter's has since switched its label formulation, specifically for the Spring 09 line, which should be hitting stores soon. Through their Fall 08 clothing lines, Carter's used the supplier's Halo-Free Heat Transfers; for the Spring 09 line, they are using Halo-Free ECO Heat Transfers. (The term "halo-free" refers to the fact that both labels lack a bordering translucent "stamp" area and only show printing where ink is desired.)
The exact chemical formulations and ingredients of such products are carefully guarded trade secrets, and may not even be available to the companies that make use of them. Where technical data is absent, however, marketing materials can provide some clues. The benefits of this "ECO" label type, as outlined in Avery-Dennison's product brochure, include:
- Eco-Friendly: water-based inks, PVC-free, no harmful substances
- Meets Öko-Tex 100 Class 1 - suitable for skin contact for babies
- Contains no Azo dyes, no formaldehyde, heavy metals or vinyl products
It may be tempting to simply invert these bullet points to garner a "shadow list" of descriptors of the company's non-"ECO" labels. The implications, of course, are that the standard Halo-Free labels may not use water-based inks, and may contain PVC, Azo dyes, formaldehyde, heavy metals, or vinyl products; there are no claims in the standard Halo-Free Heat Transfer's label that it is free of any of these things. But in fact, this is not sufficient to establish with certainty that these standard labels do contain any of those specific substances, although the possibility is there; since they were likely not even submitted for potential certification under the strict Öko-Tex 100 standard, there is a chance that even Avery may not know exactly what is in them, beyond what the government (using ASTM standards) requires them to test for.
Cleveland stated that independent testing of the labels conducted by Carter's confirmed that the standard labels did not exceed any ASTM limits for Azo dyes, heavy metals, or lead, and had "never contained formaldehyde."
Cleveland stated to Z Recommends that the shift from one formulation to another was consistent with a general trend within the industry to improve on previous formulations of tagless labels. She could not comment on whether Avery-Dennison or Carter's first suggested the switch, but said she believed that Avery-Dennison planned to eventually phase out the old style of labels in favor of this alternative formulation. "Just as we're always working to innovate to make our products safer, they are too," she said.
One possible cause for a rapid shift towards the new labels, at least among producers of children's garments, is the onset of a federal ban on three phthalates and interim restrictions on three others. Given that the "ECO" labels are advertised as PVC-free, and PVC frequently contains phthalates as a softener, it seems entirely plausible that Avery-Dennison, as well as their clients, are moving rapidly to ensure they stay in compliance with the evolving regulations in this area, and that the tags that have been used by Carter's and other brands up to this point have contained them. Phthalates are the suspected chemical of concern logged in ZRecs Guide listings of Carter's infant apparel on September 28, 2008.
Interestingly, Öko-Tex certified materials are guaranteed to be free of even more things not mentioned in Avery's marketing materials, but equally relevant to the potential problems with Carter's Fall 07 clothing: namely, allergy-inducing dyes, pesticides, and preservative phenols. From Wikipedia:
The Öko-Tex label is not only a recognized benchmark for the consumer – it also serves as an additional quality assurance tool for the manufacturer. The concept has become established as a safety standard throughout the textile manufacturing chain and enables checks to be made for any harmful substances at each stage in the production process. The test samples are tested by the independent Öko-Tex institutes for their pH-value, formaldehyde content, the presence of pesticides, extractable heavy metals, chlorinated organic carriers and preservatives such as pentachlorophenol and tetrachlorophenol. The tests also include checks for any MAC amines in azo dyestuffs and allergy-inducing dyestuffs. The use of flame-retardant and biocide finishes is prohibited in the clothing sector. The certificates issued are distributed or allocated in line with the international guidelines and specifications of the Öko-Tex Test Association. [Link]
The company response
When injury reports began surfacing in November 2007, company representatives fell back on Carter's standard policy of accepting returns directly from consumers who had any complaints about a product that could not be resolved by other means. This strategy has guided their response as the problem has grown in scope over the subsequent year, and remains as the recourse they provide to consumers. Casey stated that the company contacted the Consumer Products Safety Commission about the issue after receiving "some portion of 10 complaints," and kept in close contact with them as the number of cases increased. Almost a year later, on October 24, 2008 the company released an advisory through the CPSC for the Fall 07 line and added a page about the issue to their company website. By that time they had been contacted by approximately 400 consumers about the issue.
Casey described the process of classifying the condition by showing photographs to physicians. "The first physician we showed the photographs to, he took one look at them and said, 'That's contact dermatitis,'" Casey said. "It wasn't even the kind of thing he had to look up."
Casey confirmed that the company has lab tested not only a variety of sample garments from their Fall 2007 line, but multiple samples received from parents whose children had suffered irritation. "There was nothing in that label we could identify that could cause that kind of reaction," he said, "which led us to conclude that this is a rare allergic reaction in some babies with highly sensitive skin." He noted that families of multiple children, including one with triplets, reported irritation by some but not all of their infants from the same clothing.
He estimated that the company has been contacted by roughly 800 consumers regarding the issue, although some of them were calling without an actual medical case (i.e. they had purchased but not yet used the garments, or were calling for information or return although their children had not had a reaction). We discussed the CPSC advisory and I mentioned some consumers' call for a recall. "Since we launched, the level of inquiries on this... even now, has not been significant in terms of its relation to the total number of our garments," he said. "It is some fraction of 1% of the garments from the Fall 07 line."
The difference between contact dermatitis and a "chemical burn," as many parents (and Z Recommends) had reported as a possible characterization of the wounds, appears not to be one of degree, but of universality of effect. "A chemical burn is something that would affect virtually all people in the same way," Casey said. Something that prompts a reaction in a small subset of individuals, "even the more extreme cases" - i.e. those with seepage, blistering, and persistent effects - are still properly classified as contact dermatitis. I consented to this but observed that the reason the term had been used was because dermatitis is typically associated with something less severe, and parents were grasping for terminology that better communicated the degree of harm. Carter's representatives asked us to stress that the company relied on physicians to make these assessments.
The road ahead
Casey affirmed that Carter's is confident of the safety of its current label formulation, and the switch for the Spring 09 line does suggest to us that the newest Carter's garments, when available, will be far less likely to trigger an allergic response. We will post an image of the label style or other identifying features of these clothes on Z Recommends as soon as we have them. Casey also apologized for the problems the Fall 07 labels had caused for consumers and emphasized the aggressiveness of the company's return program and their decision to issue an advisory, which "has helped bring in a lot of calls" from parents who may not have known what was causing the irritation.
"This has been a major focus of a lot of good people inside and outside this company, and we're very sorry for the problems some of our customers have had. We intend to continue to work very hard to regain the trust of people who have had this disappointing experience with Carter's products."
I'd like to close by revisiting the four points we made about this evolving case in our last big bundle of fresh reporting on the Carter's situation. In that piece I observed that there were four major areas we weren't satisfied were conclusively addressed. In brief, they were:
- The problematic nature of estimating the number of cases from the number of reports;
- the nature and characterization of injuries;
- the scope of the problem in Carter's product line (beyond Fall 07); and
- the potential implication of other companies in this problem.
As journalists, we believe that item #1 is still a nagging issue. Estimating how many children are affected by this based on how many have reported in to Carter's or the CPSC or both is very messy. I don't think we have a complete picture on this and don't know how or when we'll have one.
Our data for items #3 and 4 is still highly anecdotal; we have received a few reports of problems with Carter's later lines, and regarding items from other brands, but we rarely know if children may have been previously exposed to Carter's Fall 07 items prior to other exposures, or what the relative levels of problems with these other item types are.
Item #2 was, I believe, a misuse of technical terms in an attempt to describe the seriousness of a problem; the fact may be that we (and others) just needed a wake-up call regarding how broad a range of effects and levels of suffering the term "contact dermatitis" encompasses. The fact that such skin irritation can lead to other problems (including a staph infection and hospitalization, in the case of Ava Kunze) do not seem to affect this strict technical classification. Z Recommends apologizes for the error.
Have Carter's items you'd like to return?
The company's refund program is open to parents with Carter's infant clothing from any season, new or used. Call Carter's at 1-888-282-4674 and they will send you postage-paid packaging based on the number of items you have to return.
Casey estimated that customers who could provide receipts could get a refund within a week. "Then, it's a very simple process," he said, "but nobody keeps receipts for a year." Without a receipt, company representatives had to look up the specific items to "research what the highest price paid for the garments was," which he described as a still-straightforward process but one requiring more time. He stated that returns "should be" processed within two weeks without a receipt. (Our presumption is that this means two weeks from the point when the company has received the garments from the customer, leading up to the mailing of a check; factor in the shipping cycles and I suspect you're looking at a total time of about a month to get your reimbursement.
We also encourage consumers who have experienced problems to continue reporting these cases to the CPSC so the agency can have the best possible understanding of the scope of the issue. They can be reached at 800-638-2772 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.
Additionally, if you receive a reimbursement that is not as much as you expected or believe you are owed (as some readers have reported in comments on this blog), we encourage you to call the company back to ask them to address it. If the customer service department can't satisfy you, Michael Casey expressed an interest in our interview in having calls escalated to his office if necessary to ensure any problems are resolved.
Like getting real reporting on consumer issues that affect your children? Subscribe to Z Recommends (via email or RSS) and The Tranquil Parent (also available via email or RSS) and you won't miss any of our investigative reporting, including updates on the Carter's tagless apparel story, as well as getting unbiased product reviews, consumer tips, and down-to-earth parenting and family advice.
CPSC releases rash advisory for Carter’s tagless apparel. Is it enough?
By Jeremiah | October 24, 2008 | 68 comments / Join the conversation!
Labels for Carter's products excluded from the advisory. Carter's maintains that the problem with their tagless labels is confined to their Fall 2007 line, although reader reports to Z Recommends suggest otherwise.
We've been following the story of Carter's tagless apparel for about six weeks now, and in that time we've heard dozens of stories and seen several very disturbing photos of skin reactions infants are suffering while wearing the company's clothing. Last month we filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to see the incident reports they have received on tagless clothing for the past five years; we received the results from the CPSC last week, and will share the findings and our analysis next week. More than 100 parents have written in to tell their stories on Z Recommends (140 comments to date), and several have started their own blogs to publicize their personal stories, raise awareness about the problem, and pressure Carter's for more aggressive action.
Today, the CPSC released an advisory developed with Carter's to address the problem. The advisory reads:
The new FAQ page regarding tagless apparel on Carter's website includes the following statement:
This is probably as far as Carter's is able to go with this issue, at least for now. They still contend that the problem is limited to Fall 2007 products, but they are still accepting returns for any items from any season, which is a standard policy rather than a specific response to this issue. (You could, in theory, contact them with a complaint about a different product defect and receive the same offer for reimbursement.) By putting out this public statement - linked prominently from the company home page as well as released through the CPSC's advisory system - they are helping parents identify the source of a problem that has too often been a puzzle.
So, case closed?
Unfortunately, we don't think so. Here's why.
Based on the information we have collected to date, we are now quite confident of several things:
All of these factors will impact how consumers react to the advisory, now and in the months to come - and at the moment, things don't look good.
Carter's strategy for handling reported problems has involved conferring closely with label suppliers while offering consumers reimbursements for returns of clothing causing irritation. Returns are accepted more or less without question, and prepaid packaging for the shipment of clothing back to the company often come with an apologetic note and a stuffed animal. Early comments from consumers were divided between those who were wary of turning in the clothing they saw as their only evidence of the problem and those who were grateful to have the problem acknowledged and to know how to avoid further incidents.
But there are problems with the cautious, conservative, yet personalized approach Carter's has chosen. In the past few weeks, the tone of the consumer response to this issue has shifted markedly. Parents have begun reporting that they have been compensated for less than they were promised and less than they spent on the clothing. Our comments have gotten longer, and have begun to include more exclamation points, more capital letters, and strongly-worded calls for parents to band together somehow.
Many of these parents are now seasoned to view the latest advisory with suspicion. Tagless apparel has been around for years, including in infant clothes; even if sensitivity to the tags is relatively rare, why not return to an older formulation that did not cause irritation? What about reports from consumers of rashes and burns caused by later seasons of Carter's clothes, or from other brands with an equally small transfer "footprint"? If companies like Carter's cared about children's safety, some of these parents will ask, why not switch to clothing with tags - not the cheap synthetic kind that led to the rise in tagless clothing in the first place, but the higher-quality cloth ones that used to be in clothes? How many cents per garment are being saved to endanger the subset of the infant population that appears highly sensitive to the materials currently in use?
Where confusion and appreciation for Carter's one-on-one response once carried the day, the voices of parents like Janet Kruze, who started the blog "Ava's Tagless Horror with Carter's" last week, might better express the current zeitgeist. After writing of her frustration with getting Carter's to pay for the medical bills associated with her child's treatment for what she states her pediatrician identified as a chemical burn caused by Carter's onesies, she ultimately posted an open letter to Michael Casey, CEO of the company - and received an overnighted, hand-written response from Casey shortly thereafter. Here it is:
Her response? A fiery and intensely angry call for a product recall.
For Carter's, the timing could not be worse. Carter's had been a family company since its founding at the end of the Civil War until a private equity firm bought it in 2001 and sent public in 2003, and it has been on financial thin ice for the past year or so. The growing public company purchased Osh Kosh B'Gosh in 2005, and shares ran as high as $34 and change in mid-2006, but in 2008 Carter's reported to shareholders that it had paid roughly twice what the company was worth (they acquired it for $312 million, and later wrote down the company's valuation by $142.9 million). This write-down, and the subsequent decline in Carter's stock, has resulted in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Carter's shareholders against the company for misrepresenting the value of Osh Kosh. In July of 2008 the company's shares hit an all-time low of a frightening $12.66 a share, and has been on a roller-coaster ride ever since, made all the wilder by the current crash. Most recently, the stock has been up, based on a strong quarterly report. The report made no mention of any current or future impact the tagless issue might have on the company, which is in keeping with representatives' claims that cases are isolated and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than initiating any recalls.
A Georgian law firm is working on a class-action lawsuit for parents of children who have had allergic reactions to Carter's tagless apparel. Television news reports are slowly spreading throughout the country. The CPSC advisory, which is sure to be widely publicized, will undoubtedly lead to a rise in reported incidents - many parents will have a new awareness of the problem and want their child's case counted. The question now will be how much the frequency of incident reports rise, and how shareholders respond to this issue, if at all. We'll be watching, and following this story. It isn't over yet.
You can read our previous reporting on this issue here and here.
What do you think of Carter's response to this issue to date?
We have since published an interview with Carter's CEO Michael Casey, as well as stronger evidence of the source of the irritation. You can read that reporting here.
Today, the CPSC released an advisory developed with Carter's to address the problem. The advisory reads:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Carter’s, Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia, are advising parents and caregivers that they have received reports that a small percentage of babies and infants have developed rashes on the upper back after wearing Carter’s clothing with heat-transferred, or “tag-less,” labels.
This advisory applies to Carter’s Fall 2007 product line. The Fall 2007 line utilizes a label on the inside back of the garment that has a raised surface with a solid, rather than a stenciled, background. This advisory does not apply to previous and current product lines, which utilize labels with stenciled backgrounds.
The garments, which were made in various countries, were sold at Carter’s own retail stores and at department and national chain stores.
If your child develops a rash on the upper back after wearing garments that have a “tag-less” label with a solid background, you should stop using these garments. If the rash persists or worsens, you should contact your pediatrician. For additional information, visit Carter’s website at http://www.carters.com/corporate/tagless_message.aspx, contact Carter’s toll free at 1-888-282-4674 or by email at contactus@carters.com. [Link]
The new FAQ page regarding tagless apparel on Carter's website includes the following statement:
Is this reaction serious?
It is our understanding that the reaction is a type of allergic reaction called contact dermatitis and that it generally clears up completely within a matter of days after removal from contact with the allergen. If the condition persists, please contact your pediatrician for advice.
What is in the labels?
We purchase the tag-less labels directly from multiple U.S.-based label suppliers. The suppliers are aware of our quality and safety standards and have provided us with third-party test results that indicate that the labels are in compliance with all existing safety and quality standards. The label contains the standard ink formulation used by many companies on literally billions of garments in the United States. The label is applied by means of a standard screen transfer, similar to an iron-on screen print, the same type of technology used for many years and on many types of garments. The specific ingredients and relative percentages of the ink formula for the label vary depending on the colors and style of the particular label, but it is our understanding from the manufacturers that it is generally the same type of ink that has been used on clothing for many years ranging from children's clothing to adult intimate apparel.
It appears that a very small percentage of children can be allergic to one or more ingredients in the labels. The solid, rather than stenciled, background on the Fall 2007 labels appears to have produced a more pronounced and noticeable reaction among those children who are most allergic to the ink. For stylistic reasons, Carter’s has switched back to the smaller labels for our Spring and Fall 2008 line. [Link]
This is probably as far as Carter's is able to go with this issue, at least for now. They still contend that the problem is limited to Fall 2007 products, but they are still accepting returns for any items from any season, which is a standard policy rather than a specific response to this issue. (You could, in theory, contact them with a complaint about a different product defect and receive the same offer for reimbursement.) By putting out this public statement - linked prominently from the company home page as well as released through the CPSC's advisory system - they are helping parents identify the source of a problem that has too often been a puzzle.
So, case closed?
Unfortunately, we don't think so. Here's why.
The scope of the problem
Based on the information we have collected to date, we are now quite confident of several things:
- This problem affects many infants, most of whom suffer for weeks or months before their parents and doctors were able to identify the source of the problem. Estimating the number of incidents based on the number of reports, however, seems like poor guesswork.
- While what some children are experiencing can be accurately described as a "rash," for others the reaction is much more severe, and has been identified by pediatricians as a chemical burn requiring significant home care and time to heal. Additionally, after an initial exposure, children may be more highly sensitive to other exposures, including items which had previously triggered no allergic response.
- Issues with Carter's clothing appear to have begun with the company's Fall 2007 line (produced that summer), but has been repeatedly cited by parents citing later seasons of Carter's clothing, despite a significant reduction in the quantity of ink used in Carter's tagless labels between the Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 lines.
- The reaction is not confined to clothing produced by Carter's, but has been experienced by infants wearing tagless apparel by Baby Gap, Circo, and other brands as well. It is impossible to say, at this point, whether the predominance of Carter's as a cited brand is based on the chemical composition of the company's product or the difficulties with identification cited in #1. (Since Carter's has now received significant press on this issue, families whose infants wear non-Carter's brand tagless apparel might be even slower to correctly identify the source of the problem.)
All of these factors will impact how consumers react to the advisory, now and in the months to come - and at the moment, things don't look good.
Eroded trust
Carter's strategy for handling reported problems has involved conferring closely with label suppliers while offering consumers reimbursements for returns of clothing causing irritation. Returns are accepted more or less without question, and prepaid packaging for the shipment of clothing back to the company often come with an apologetic note and a stuffed animal. Early comments from consumers were divided between those who were wary of turning in the clothing they saw as their only evidence of the problem and those who were grateful to have the problem acknowledged and to know how to avoid further incidents.
But there are problems with the cautious, conservative, yet personalized approach Carter's has chosen. In the past few weeks, the tone of the consumer response to this issue has shifted markedly. Parents have begun reporting that they have been compensated for less than they were promised and less than they spent on the clothing. Our comments have gotten longer, and have begun to include more exclamation points, more capital letters, and strongly-worded calls for parents to band together somehow.
Many of these parents are now seasoned to view the latest advisory with suspicion. Tagless apparel has been around for years, including in infant clothes; even if sensitivity to the tags is relatively rare, why not return to an older formulation that did not cause irritation? What about reports from consumers of rashes and burns caused by later seasons of Carter's clothes, or from other brands with an equally small transfer "footprint"? If companies like Carter's cared about children's safety, some of these parents will ask, why not switch to clothing with tags - not the cheap synthetic kind that led to the rise in tagless clothing in the first place, but the higher-quality cloth ones that used to be in clothes? How many cents per garment are being saved to endanger the subset of the infant population that appears highly sensitive to the materials currently in use?
Where confusion and appreciation for Carter's one-on-one response once carried the day, the voices of parents like Janet Kruze, who started the blog "Ava's Tagless Horror with Carter's" last week, might better express the current zeitgeist. After writing of her frustration with getting Carter's to pay for the medical bills associated with her child's treatment for what she states her pediatrician identified as a chemical burn caused by Carter's onesies, she ultimately posted an open letter to Michael Casey, CEO of the company - and received an overnighted, hand-written response from Casey shortly thereafter. Here it is:
Her response? A fiery and intensely angry call for a product recall.
The company context
For Carter's, the timing could not be worse. Carter's had been a family company since its founding at the end of the Civil War until a private equity firm bought it in 2001 and sent public in 2003, and it has been on financial thin ice for the past year or so. The growing public company purchased Osh Kosh B'Gosh in 2005, and shares ran as high as $34 and change in mid-2006, but in 2008 Carter's reported to shareholders that it had paid roughly twice what the company was worth (they acquired it for $312 million, and later wrote down the company's valuation by $142.9 million). This write-down, and the subsequent decline in Carter's stock, has resulted in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Carter's shareholders against the company for misrepresenting the value of Osh Kosh. In July of 2008 the company's shares hit an all-time low of a frightening $12.66 a share, and has been on a roller-coaster ride ever since, made all the wilder by the current crash. Most recently, the stock has been up, based on a strong quarterly report. The report made no mention of any current or future impact the tagless issue might have on the company, which is in keeping with representatives' claims that cases are isolated and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than initiating any recalls.
A Georgian law firm is working on a class-action lawsuit for parents of children who have had allergic reactions to Carter's tagless apparel. Television news reports are slowly spreading throughout the country. The CPSC advisory, which is sure to be widely publicized, will undoubtedly lead to a rise in reported incidents - many parents will have a new awareness of the problem and want their child's case counted. The question now will be how much the frequency of incident reports rise, and how shareholders respond to this issue, if at all. We'll be watching, and following this story. It isn't over yet.
You can read our previous reporting on this issue here and here.
What do you think of Carter's response to this issue to date?
We have since published an interview with Carter's CEO Michael Casey, as well as stronger evidence of the source of the irritation. You can read that reporting here.
Carter’s responds to ZRecs inquiry
By Jeremiah | September 12, 2008 | 116 comments / Join the conversation!
Photo by Leigh Radlowski, used with permission.
A note to readers: We have published a post with new information about this issue. Make sure to read it after you read this one!
Last week we reported on skin lesions being suffered by infants wearing Carter's tagless clothing, and have since received dozens of similar reports from readers, many of them intensely frustrated because their pediatricians declared the issue simple eczema and prescribed medication without examining potential underlying problems. Since that time we have been in frequent communication with Janell Cleveland, Carter's Senior Director of Consumer Affairs, throughout the week regarding the issue some consumers are having with the brand's tagless infant clothing, a story we first reported on last week. So far, we have received responses to some of our questions, a statement from the company, and the promise that they will work to provide us with additional information.
According to Cleveland, Carter's labels do not contain formaldehyde, but might contain phthalates, which are common in tagless apparel applications. Their labels undergo frequent redesigns and their Fall 2007 line had a full-screen label that used an estimated 300% of the plastisol ink used in previous or subsequent collections, which may account for the skin reactions, as the formulation of their tags has not changed in that time. The company is working to get us information for publication regarding the presence of phthalates in these labels and, if present, which phthalates are being used. The company is accepting clothing for refund and requests reports be directed to them as they further investigate the problem.
Right now their working hypothesis is that it is the Fall '07 line that is the problem, so reports of injuries relating to other seasons, especially later ones - Spring '08 and Fall '08 - would be tremendously helpful to them. We'd appreciate receiving these reports directly as well at editors (at) zrecs (dot) com.
At our request, Carter's drafted the following official statement for publication:
We are looking forward to receiving and sharing additional information from Carter's, particularly what is in their plastisol labels. We are investigating through additional channels as well. We're also trying to compile information on other brands that might be causing similar reactions, so would appreciate any reports and photographs - send them to editors (at) zrecs (dot) com.
Note: Now check out our more recent post for the latest information on this issue.
Last week we reported on skin lesions being suffered by infants wearing Carter's tagless clothing, and have since received dozens of similar reports from readers, many of them intensely frustrated because their pediatricians declared the issue simple eczema and prescribed medication without examining potential underlying problems. Since that time we have been in frequent communication with Janell Cleveland, Carter's Senior Director of Consumer Affairs, throughout the week regarding the issue some consumers are having with the brand's tagless infant clothing, a story we first reported on last week. So far, we have received responses to some of our questions, a statement from the company, and the promise that they will work to provide us with additional information.
What we know
According to Cleveland, Carter's labels do not contain formaldehyde, but might contain phthalates, which are common in tagless apparel applications. Their labels undergo frequent redesigns and their Fall 2007 line had a full-screen label that used an estimated 300% of the plastisol ink used in previous or subsequent collections, which may account for the skin reactions, as the formulation of their tags has not changed in that time. The company is working to get us information for publication regarding the presence of phthalates in these labels and, if present, which phthalates are being used. The company is accepting clothing for refund and requests reports be directed to them as they further investigate the problem.
Right now their working hypothesis is that it is the Fall '07 line that is the problem, so reports of injuries relating to other seasons, especially later ones - Spring '08 and Fall '08 - would be tremendously helpful to them. We'd appreciate receiving these reports directly as well at editors (at) zrecs (dot) com.
A statement from Carter's
At our request, Carter's drafted the following official statement for publication:
Carter’s is aware of several reports from consumers whose children have experienced skin reactions while wearing apparel products containing heat-transferred, or "tagless" labels. Some of these products have been identified as Carter's products. We want to assure our customers that we take this matter seriously and are doing everything we can to ensure their continued confidence in and satisfaction with our products.
Carter's has used different types of heat transferred labels for many years on hundreds of millions of products. Our experience with these labels is that they are safe and that any skin reaction is extremely rare. Regardless, we take our quality control very seriously and carefully review all consumer concerns. Prior to being used in our products, these labels passed third-party testing for all applicable safety standards.
Since this issue came to our attention, we have contacted the label manufacturer to further review the manufacturing process, and we are conducting further testing and have engaged experts to determine the source of the skin reactions, which we currently believe to be a rare allergic reaction. Because of design trends, the features and appearance of our labels change frequently. In fact, before receiving any of the recent complaints, these labels underwent further design and feature changes for our new product season.
Your feedback and comments are important to us. We encourage you to contact us at 1-888-782-9548 with any questions or concerns you may have with any Carter’s products.
What you should do
- If your child gets a rash or lesion, call Carter's at 888-782-9548. Then call the CPSC to report the problem at their hotline number: 800-638-2772. Then email us photos and some information so that we can reference it when dealing with Carter's and the CPSC and reporting accurately on this issue.
- If you're using Carter's tagless infant clothing, we recommend you stop using it if a reaction occurs or if you are using the Fall 2007 line, even if your child has not had a reaction. This is our personal opinion.
What we're still trying to learn
We are looking forward to receiving and sharing additional information from Carter's, particularly what is in their plastisol labels. We are investigating through additional channels as well. We're also trying to compile information on other brands that might be causing similar reactions, so would appreciate any reports and photographs - send them to editors (at) zrecs (dot) com.
Note: Now check out our more recent post for the latest information on this issue.
Browse Z Recommends
-
recent posts
I think this kid is braver than I am Puppies, puppies everywhere: Peaceable Kingdom’s Lost Puppies game HABA picks a winner with Hit the Throttle Sesame Street and the Case of the Missing Gordon A daily calendar for kids Missing a friend today Crochet your own Space Shuttle Pampers to settle Dry Max class-action lawsuit Superbaby Ken dumps Barbie over Mattel’s contribution to rainforest destruction
- categories
- blog archive
- blogs we read
Looking for something?
Search
The ZRecs Guide
1360 products, 261 brands, and counting...
Get ZRecs’ monthly newsletter
Learn about our privacy policy
More good stuff
Advertisements
Advertisements
