The Environmental Protection Agency has released findings of a recent study indicating that a currently unregulated phthalate, dipentyl phthalate (DPeP or DPP for short), may be more hazardous than any of the phthalates permanently banned by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (DEHP, DBP, and BBP) as well as those under a temporary ban (DINP, DIDP and DnOP). Phthalates are widely used as softeners for plastics, primarily but not exclusively in PVC.

From Environmental Health News, a publication of the journal Environmental Health Sciences:

The results provide strong evidence that DPeP – a little known and understudied phthalate – may actually pose a greater risk to the developing male reproductive system than the better-known DEHP. DPeP was eight times more potent in reducing testosterone production, 3 - 6 times more potent in blocking gene activity, and 2 - 3 times more potent in causing male genital abnormalities.

Rats share many developmental similarities with humans, so there is good reason to think that prenatal exposure to DPeP would have similar effects on human male reproductive development. In both species, testosterone production during certain critical fetal periods is needed for the reproductive system to develop in characteristically masculine ways.

The study is important because it provides solid information about how prebirth exposure to different doses of DPeP affect male reproductive development. The authors have filled in data gaps that will help determine whether it, too, might warrant government regulation in the future. Several other less potent phthalate compounds have been identified for stringent regulatory actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. [Link]

The EPA appears to be in the middle of an assessment process for evaluating the hazards of DPP which is set to conclude at the beginning of 2012.

ZRecs has advised companies to avoid all phthalates in their products. Unfortunately, some companies offering products claiming to be "phthalate-free" may be referring not to all phthalates, but to those specifically banned by CPSIA.

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.

Members of the House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce formally submitted a letter to chair Henry Waxman today requesting that the committee hold a hearing to discuss issues surrounding all the folks the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (as currently written) will put out of business. (Hat tip to Liz at Cool Mom Picks for putting it on our radar!) Read the letter below, or download it yourself in PDF form, but here's the real meat of it:

The emails, letters, and phone calls we have received from constituents about the unintended consequences of certain provisions and deadlines in CPSC's implementation plan now number in the thousands. Many involved in CPSIA's creation were passionate to improve the safty of our children's products, but surely no one expected or wanted to drive thousands of home-based and small businesses out of operation and turn thousands of Americans into surprise victims of a brutal recession. For example, it seems obvious to us tha t the hand-knitted sweaters and homemade hair bows sold by artisans on eBay are highly unlikely to endanger children's health.

The situation is urgent. On February 10, in less than three weeks, these tiny toy producers will be out of business. Their products, regardless of innocence and safety, will have to be removed from store shelves and the websites of their home businesses.

You have urged the Commission to deal with the problem by issuing new guidance. Regrettably, the kind of modifications to existing requrements needed to prevent a broad collapse of home-based businesses may take months to achieve. We are advised that even if the CPSC devotes full staff attention and moves at the most expeditious speed, it will be unable [to] issue the necessary guidance prior to February 10 without violating Federal rulemaking requirements.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence that these micro-producers are doing anything wrong or endangering anyone, and we believe there is no reasonfor them to suffer a dvasating economic blow simply because their government cannot find a way to help in time.

Here's hoping that Waxman takes their call for action seriously. Honestly, the alternative is so draconian, we're quite hopeful he will. And it gets better - also today, Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, sent out notice to federal agencies that all pending Bush regulations will be placed on hold pending executive review. It's unclear to us exactly what this means, the term "pending" specifically, but it's another sign that there may be some movement on this issue, and quickly.

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.

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.