Last week, the CPSC announced the recall of a children's book published by St. Martin's Press that included a piece of vinyl that contained dangerous levels of lead. While the recall was the first in what will likely be a long list of novelty children's books coming under CPSC scrutiny for their incorporation of sketchy plastics, what really caught our eye about it was a note in the recall notice that indicated that the CPSC had been alerted to the product's lead levels by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG). Digging deeper, we discovered that US PIRG had reported their findings in a report published on November 24, 2009 - a full month and a half before the recall was announced.

Meanwhile, Target is continuing to "investigate" the Green Baby onesie ZRecs, in collaboration with the Center for Environmental Health, identified in November as containing nearly four times the legal limit of lead in its tagless label - putting it in direct contact with a baby's skin. The California Attorney General notified Target of the finding and Target stopped selling it while promising to investigate the matter themselves. (The Washington Post, in an otherwise excellent article on "citizen regulators," erroneously stated that Target had recalled the onesie. The Post ran a correction this week.) Target representative Beth Hanson confirmed in an email to us a week ago:

• Upon receiving the information from the California Attorney General's office about this product, Target issued a voluntary market withdrawal. This product has been removed from sale in our stores and we continue to investigate the issue.


• Once a market withdrawal has been issued, we hard lock all items at the point of sale. A “hard lock” means that should a guest attempt to purchase a withdrawn product while we are in the process of removing it from the sales floor, the product will flag our cashiers with a “do not sell” message at the register.


• It is important for all of our guests to know that Target is committed to providing high quality and safe products. We realize that product safety is top of mind for our guests. We continue to partner with our vendors to ensure that the best products are in our stores and online at Target.com.


• Since this is an ongoing investigation about this particular product, we are unable to provide further specifics.


• Guests who have purchased the withdrawn product can return it to any Target store for a full refund.

We inquired further regarding the timeline such an investigation might take, and Hanson declined to provide any estimate or any additional information about Target's review process. But it's hard, on its face, to accept that it should take this long for an issue like this to be resolved. The longer a company like Target waits, the greater the distance between purchase and notification, the greater the exposure children face, and the fewer returns the company is likely to get when the product is ultimately (presumably) recalled. The disincentives to conduct a timely recall are real and obvious.

The CPSC is also looking into this case and we are confident it will be resolved eventually. But how long can a company like Target make consumers wait before they cast even greater doubt on the commitment to safety the company claims to set as such a high priority?

More on onesie hazards to come.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is a lot of fear about what will happen on February 10, 2009 - the day provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act go into effect, and the day many in the small-business community are now calling National Bankruptcy Day. (Read this Christian Science Monitor article if you have any doubt about what's at stake here.)

As the CPSC muddles through these issues in the weeks before they drop the "Feb-bomb" on the entire children's products industry, many of us have lost confidence in their ability to work with Congress to make the needed adjustments that will offer the best consumer protection available under a saner set of rules. Instead, they have elected to selectively interpret sections of the Act and offer minor concessions that do little good. Exempting a series of natural materials, for example, comes with the stipulation that they not be painted or dyed, even with substances proven to be of little or no risk to consumers (plant-based pigments, beeswax). Reassuring resellers that they are not required to test products comes with the warning that they will be liable for big fines if a product they sell is discovered to violate the standard.

We'd like to go ahead and make some predictions about what the CPSIA will do to U.S. businesses and consumer choice in 2009, in addition to helping protect children from lead and phthalates, if the law stands as currently written. These predictions are offered in the hopes that any we'd like to avoid could be avoided, especially if enough consumers take action.

The mass market

• Fewer choices from fewer brands. The big companies in infant care, children's toys, and apparel will begin reducing the variety of "styles" of individual products, and cut some less-profitable lines entirely rather than pay for redundant testing. This means a single model of sippy cup will suddenly come in two color choices instead of six, a pacifier in one style instead of four, and a lunch box in two licensed-character lines, one for boys and one for girls, instead of a half-dozen different characters plus a couple of generic models. Your local big-box store's sleepwear section will have half the number of fabrics, and you'll suddenly have trouble finding that yellow or green onesie to welcome a baby whose gender isn't known, and go with white instead. Brands that produce some kids' products but don't rely on them exclusively (high-end designers, furniture makers, and small companies with a range of small-batch products) may abandon the children's product market completely. Parent companies will shuffle their holdings. Startups will thin out, with fewer new entrants into the market, even than in past periods of recession.


• The 8-to-12 toy gap. Although it is illegal to claim that a product intended for children is only intended for adults, a major gray area exists in the 8-to-12-year-old market. New products that would traditionally be marketed as "8 and up" will suddenly be labeled as "13 and up" or "over 12." The CPSC will challenge a few of these claims, but only the most egregious cases, because those are the only fights they can win. Other companies may choose to strengthen divisions offering products for older children at the expense of those for younger children. Either way, parents will face fewer choices as well as diminished rights for those they buy for "off-label" use.


• Increased prices. Safety costs money and is worth our investment as consumers. But companies, at least initially, will be more concerned with protecting profits than competing on price. Depending on company strategy, these increases may be gradual or may hit in about six months.


• The green purge. Consumers and retailers will remain confused regarding which product types can still be sold from current stock, and for how long; as a result, more products will showcase non-plastic materials, undergo stricter voluntary materials testing (Oeko-Tex), and promote themselves as "free" of banned chemicals. Book publishers will shy away specifically from synthetic covers, vinyl infant books, and integrated toy-book gimmicks. Meanwhile, vast quantities of unsold children's merchandise will be exported or destroyed. Companies doing business in the developing world will dump products there at cut-rate prices. Those that don't will send them directly into landfills, where they will slowly leach their banned substances into the environment. Non-compliant products will be retired as quietly as possible to minimize customer complaints and attempted returns.


• Booby traps. Manufacturers who believed the CPSIA had no bearing on their product area will have a rude awakening. Congress will pass new laws to exclude them.

The used market

• Online reselling will get safer. eBay, Craigslist, and other peer-to-peer sales services will see fewer listings of recalled items as top sellers are investigated and a few prosecuted, resulting in an overall increased safety level for cribs, high chairs, and toys offered through such services.


• Online swapping will get more secretive. Many small and hobbyist forums for swapping between parents currently permit the viewing of posts by outsiders. Most of these will go fully private, often in response to requests from members, to help decrease participants' chances of being targeted for prosecution. Moderators will develop new methods for vetting members or require referrals for new members.


• Thrift store profiling. Resellers are not required to test products, but are liable for the products they sell. This will likely result in product "profiling" strategies that vary wildly from store to store, but products obviously made from softened PVC (backpacks, play yards) will become difficult to find used and will go directly into landfills without being reused or passed on. Painted and plastic toys by unknown brands will also be broadly rejected. Few, if any, will conduct any testing.

The handmade and craft market

• The handmade industry will contract and undergo a broad cultural shift. Consumer options and volume will both be significantly reduced as work-at-home artisans are forced to choose between going out of business and flaunting a law they feel is unjust. Those who stop selling will tend to be older, and have more to lose from the risk of prosecution - homes, assets - while those who remain will tend to be younger, and will absorb the new business while pressing the "handmade movement" into more pointed political service. The most active agitators will help articulate the movement's goals using techniques from edge communities and will improve their skills at drawing media attention, which will protect them from prosecution to some degree. DC-area crafters will hold crafting sit-ins at public hearings and agency meetings. Sales of Civil Disobedience will rise. Those who leave may find other work, or may wait, and even produce goods, while they wait for a fix.


• The mass media will speak up about the issue. An ill-informed spike in television news coverage will miss much of the point and overhype the rest. Oprah will get involved, Martha might, and when they do, they'll nail it.

A few questions for you, any of which you're welcome to respond to in the comments:

• What do you think of the planned CPSIA regulations?


• What do you think of the CPSC's handling of the public concern and confusion surrounding these issues?


• Do you have any predictions to add to the list, or any of ours you think won't come to pass?


• What have you done, or could you still do, to make an impact on this issue?

Photos, from top, by Hey Het, photophonic, and tegurity. ZRecs.com cover image by phlora. All photos shared via Flickr.

We can't say enough good things about Hanna Andersson, the Portland-based manufacturer of gorgeous, high-quality, organic clothing. We feature their children's pajamas in the ZRecs Guide for Safer Children's Products because they use tags in their sleepwear and their close-fitting, cotton designs are flame-retardant free (not so with their looser, dress-like garments, due to U.S. regulations requiring them). The company is also one of the best corporate citizens out there, so take a peek too at the many ways they support charities with their work.

Hanna Andersson clothes are pretty expensive, but the company is in the middle of a semi-annual sale, which means that these clothes are suddenly (and briefly) within reach for a lot of people who otherwise couldn't afford them. If you're used to buying super-cheap clothing, the sale prices of $15-$20 may still look high, but we think at the sale prices these garments are a great buy.

It isn't clear when this sale ends, so if $20 for some really nice kids' pajamas sounds like something worth buying, check out this handy (and lengthy) single page showing all of the items on sale.

Hanna Andersson is one of the many companies featured in the ZRecs Guide that do not sell through Amazon.com, and thus do not earn ZRecs any affiliate income. ZRecs is committed to sharing information about a wide array of companies like these, as well as providing detailed information about products we do not recommend.

[Via Baby Cheapskate]

Onesies, bodysuits, creepers - whatever you call them, a lot of parents are in the market for some one-piece baby outfits that have tags. (Here's why.) We've had a lot of people asking where they can find some, and until now we had few answers that were very affordable - a lot of "premium" brands, as well as silkscreen or small-batch shops, sell them with tags, but prices range from $16-$24, not exactly doable for most of our budgets. We even looked around at onesie print-on-demand shops to see if we could find a source to offer them directly at cost, but CafePress and others started at $10, which didn't seem low enough.

So we're happy to announce we've discovered one incredibly cheap offer to share with readers - Hanes' Playwear line, which for some reason is selling (we presume temporarily) on Hanes.com for $3 apiece. They cost $10 apiece on Amazon, so head straight to the company site to get a great deal on replenishing your baby's wardrobe, if that's what you're looking at needing to do.

Here's a direct link to the onesies on sale - they're available in pale pink, pale blue, pale gray, pale yellow, and white, at sizes from newborn to 18-24 months. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they'll be running out soon due to an unforseen surge in demand, or they will be increasing the direct-sale price.

Links above are affiliate links, so any purchases you make on the Hanes site through it provide us with a commission. Feel free to share the link to this post with friends, too. Twitterers, here's a tiny link to this post: http://tinyurl.com/5elb2m