Amy over at Crunchy Domestic Goddess has an interesting post recently about disposing of - and passing on - used children's toys, and it encouraged us to write about something that has been bothering us for a while here at ZRecs. From our point of view, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is one of the biggest reasons why the trashing of useful - and perfectly safe - children's toys is going to get worse, not better, in the years to come.

We review and process dozens of children's products every month - during the ramp-up to the holiday shopping season, sometimes hundreds. These products are evaluated and use-tested for inclusion in the ZRecs Guide, considered for inclusion in ZRecs gift guides and for stand-alone reviews, and written about and discussed in opportunities we are offered to discuss kids' products in other forums. (Most recently, we wrote about twenty or so kids' gift recommendations that went out to 800,000 families through another parenting site, and appeared in a safer holiday toys TV segment in Austin that aired in December.)

To make a long story short, 90% of the products we receive - almost all of which are solicited by us, not sent unsolicited - are removed from their packaging and very gently used. So it was with great distress that we discovered that one of the outcomes of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is that thrift stores around the country are beginning to stop stocking and selling most used children's items, everything from cribs - which probably shouldn't be on the secondhand market at all these days thanks to regular recalls of monstrous scope - to all manner of children's toys, games, and in some cases even books.

We live in College Station, Texas. Our local Goodwill stores no longer accept any used children's products, as a matter of policy, because of the cryptic but very real responsibility for total product safety that CPSIA places on them. (Please don't tell me thrift stores are off the hook. We've heard it, and they aren't. And "we probably won't have the resources to prosecute at your level" is not an acceptable business model, even for a charitable organization.) We have seen other cities where Goodwills and other thrift stores have enacted similar policies, and some that haven't. Even Goodwill stores, we learned in a call we placed to their national headquarters, can choose how to respond to CPSIA with regard to stocking children's toys.

Just before Christmas this year, we made our regular donation of still-in-the-box toys to a holiday toy drive - items we had not requested and had no interest in opening, and duplicates - you'd be surprised how often companies accidentally send two of an item, through some administrative glitch or another. But then we tried to donate a large number of items we had opened, used several times in play, photography, and adult assessment, but were in 'like new" condition, and had a very difficult time doing so. Our local Goodwill refused the toys entirely and the battered women's shelter would only take stuff that was still in the box. For everything out of its original packaging, we had to work really hard to find places that would accept use toys - many ended up going to local children's centers and waiting rooms that wouldn't be selling or giving away the toys, and thus were not covered under CPSIA.

For our purposes, it worked out fine. Things were a bit more hectic than usual but we tapped into a few new charities and outlets for the copious volume of stuff we receive and review. But it made our skin crawl to imagine how few parents would go through these hoops in order to get rid of used toys their children had outgrown or didn't like, or even Christmas gifts that fell quickly out of favor and needed a new home.

After Christmas had come and gone, we did a clean sweep of Z's old toys, getting rid of things she had outgrown or didn't really use under the auspices of making room for the new. Z was a trooper and gave up much more than we had anticipated, allowing us to free up space in her bedroom and the study that doubles as a playroom and make it easier for us to keep things clean and orderly so she can access the stuff she does love. But now I have two bins of toys sitting in my living room while I try to figure out what to do with them. My plan at this point is to list them on our local free email lists, but really, I'm pressed for time as it is and I'd much rather give those two giant bins of toys away in one fell swoop and have it over and done with! Listing them and making individual arrangements for pickup and so on and so forth is just barely within my ability to manage.

I can't stand to throw fun, safe, and useful toys away. But for someone less dedicated, I can imagine that those two giant bins of toys would have long been placed in a couple of giant trash bags and taken to the curb. And part of me can't blame them. My house is cluttered enough as it is and I barely have the time to scout around for places brave enough to accept them - including the vegetable-dyed wooden toys and organic cotton teethers and the other admirably safety- and environmentally-conscious children's products that make up the bulk of what we review. And not only do we fill up our landfills with these perfectly useful children's products, but where are children in families that rely on the used market - now and in the future - supposed to get toys and books? Do we just let them do without?

Almost everyone who follows what's happening at the CPSC knows that CPSIA is badly in need of fixing. The Commission itself has, after much floundering and self-contradiction, sent a list of recommended action items to Congress to address major problems in CPSIA - lead used in inaccessible product components (youth ATVs, bicycle valve stems, etc.), printed materials (books - a huge CPSIA problem, more on that in another post), the imposition of mass-production requirements on small crafters - but any better guidance or clearer regulation on the used children's market is a telling omission. The agency has also issued a second stay of enforcement on most provisions of the new law, just as it did one year ago.

We waited with bated breath for the CPSC to make its wish list of amendments to the law. Now that they have, it is looking clearer that secondhand children's goods are going to be left out in the cold even if the CPSIA is fixed - and we are going to see more and more dumpsters and dumps filling up because parents can't give the stuff away easily anymore.

Whether this problem will fade as a generation of children's products are purged from circulation is an unknown at this point. The CPSC would like us to think so, because most new products must be marked "indelibly" with the means to track them back to their source, so recalled items can be removed from the marketplace as they turn up at resellers. But this requires the CPSC to deliver a means for thrift stores to access this new, rich source of information about batches and lots of each and every children's product in a cost-effective manner, and certain types of products really cannot be marked in this way, and will be "rebels" once they are separated from their packaging, their tags are removed, or ink washes off.

It also begs the question of whether we are willing, as a society, to eject such a massive volume of newly-classified waste into our environment in order to protect ourselves from the portion that is truly unsafe, and enjoy the accompanying surge in downstream effects (phthalates leach just as well in landfills as they do in playrooms, although their route into our bodies may be less direct). The trouble is, no one asked us if we were; but it's happening, and if it isn't happening in your own backyard now, it will be before you know it.

If you'd like to learn more about our concerns about the CPSIA, from the perspective of bloggers who are all about safety in children's products, you can read the post we wrote about the CPSIA nearly a year ago today.

Between September 2006 and August 2007, Mattel and its subsidiary Fisher-Price imported a combined estimated 2 million toys that violated U.S. limits for lead in children's toys. By the time we all realized that Mattel's unpunished idiocy showed that the state of regulations in children's products was completely broken, they had recalled more than 21 million toys and we were all thinking differently about the random plastic toys you find at your local toy store, whether or not they had a major brand name on them. Mattel's actions were the largest factor that finally triggered an overhaul and reinvigoration of the Consumer Product Safety Commission under the Consumer Protection Safety Improvement Act, which went into effect this year.

Mattel and F-P have now agreed to pay $2.3 million for their lead-lined sins. (Error in post [missing decimal] corrected - thanks Kallie and Steph!) The companies still maintain they did not knowingly violate federal law. It's the largest such fine ever assessed against a toy company.

This matter has been settled out of court. Thanks to all ZRecs readers for your support.

Bad news from every parent's favorite Swedish export: they may be going bankrupt soon. [Via Daddytypes]

I attended a one-day Blogger Health Summit at Consumers Union's headquarters in Yonkers, New York on January 22. There were twenty or so bloggers and health care professionals in attendance, and I was there representing Z Recommends and the ZRecs Guide. Among the day's events was a tour of the nonprofit's testing labs, where everything from digital cameras to washing machines is rigorously tested for Consumer Reports and a wide range of other publications CU produces.

I failed to get a photograph of the exterior of the building, which is what it would make sense to put here, plus I would apparently be the first person on the internet to do so. It's a fortress-like concrete building where a lot of business clearly gets done. I did get this nice shot of the interior, though, which is full of plants.



The tour consisted of several stops to see how various products are tested. None of them were actually children's products, but lo and behold, when I was supposed to be watching this:



I couldn't help but notice this across the room:



And these lined up against the wall:



I chatted with our tour guide about CU's testing procedures for playpens, strollers, and related products. As it turns out, they typically do ease-of-use testing with adults, but only get children involved if they have a specific issue they need to examine for a given brand's product. This makes sense, but also speaks to the ongoing relevance of individual user reviews in the face of such exhaustive testing.


The organization's food testing lab was an interesting stop. The little rollup doors in the wall lead to the tiny cubbies where the tasters sit, both so they can taste products "blind" and so they won't be unduly influenced by smells generated during cooking. This is also the room where they test the microwaves, coffee makers, etc. themselves.


Washers and dryers require a lot of laundry. The presenter who explained this room's workings recommends front-loading washing machines, if you can afford one, because of their efficiency and the way they treat your clothes.


Here's the laundry. Apparently they do not bring in their laundry from home.


Cleaning effectiveness is measured using German-produced, pre-stained swatches that replicate the effects of coffee, tea, blood, and other staining agents.


Gentleness is gauged by pre-cut fabric samples that are designed to fray generously. After drying the sample a given number of times, testers log the number of frayed strings.


The camera testing room. Photographic prints and digital files are evaluated using optical thingamaboos.


Craigslist founder and customer service agent Craig Newmark was interviewed for the closer, and encouraged bloggers to think about their writing and self-publishing in terms of public service, and how to contribute to needed social change.

Hans Beck, the originator and key developer of Playmobil toys, died last Friday at the age of 79. Trained as a cabinetmaker, Beck pitched a line of model airplane toys to German toymaker Brandstätter, and was asked instead to develop a new line of toy figures. The success of Playmobil, and the impact of the brand on the toy industry, reflected a growing appreciation of the open-ended play that had faded in the 1960s. During that period, companies like Hasbro and Mattel designed ever-more-specific (and gendered) toys which relied on new advances in electronics and television-based storylines, both of which had the secondary effect of structuring play experiences much more rigidly. Ironically, much of Playmobil's impact would be confined to Europe, allowing many non-U.S. toy brands to make inroads in the U.S. market, while companies based here - not just Hasbro and Mattel but many smaller brands - continued to surround their rare blockbuster original creations, if they had one, with fleeting gadgets and licensed characters.

And to understand the clarity of Beck's vision for barely-structured narrative play, you have to remember that at the time Beck developed the Playmobil line, the drive to capitalize on new technology and new media in toy form that dominated the New York toy companies was widely regarded as the future of toys. But for people like Beck, it wasn't a desirable one.





From Wikipedia:

Beck spent 3 years developing what became Playmobil. Beck conducted research that allowed him to develop a toy that would be flexible (unlike tin soldiers), not too complex, fit in an average child's hand and have a facial design based on child's drawing (e.g having a large head, smile and no nose). "I would put the little figures in their hands without saying anything about what they were," Beck remarked. “They accepted them right away... They invented little scenarios for them. They never grew tired of playing with them." Horst Brandstätter was not initially convinced of the viability of Beck’s idea, but allowed the inventor to continue developing the product.

The 1973 oil crisis made it possible for Playmobil to be considered a viable product. Rising oil prices imposed on Geobra Brandstätter (whose headquarters are at Zirndorf), for whom Beck worked as Head of Development, demanded that the company turn to products that required less solid plastic material (during the 1960s, the company had been producing hoola-hoops and large plastic toys). More had to be done with the plastic the company bought.

The company commissioned Beck to develop an entire series. "Playmobil is a toy that doesn't impose specific play patterns on children," Beck has remarked, "but rather stimulates their imagination." The system of customizable toys, with its interchangeable parts, offered unlimited possibilities for re-combination and expansion.

Some European brands, like LEGO, have adapted to the U.S. licensing model and now make a lot of their money from character lines (Star Wars, Batman, Spongebob Squarepants). Playmobil has stuck with the idea that their characters should be unscripted - provided with props and a setting but not a set of assumptions or beliefs about how that character should behave. Beck always described his rules for Playmobil toys as "no horror, no superficial violence and no short-term trends."

And from the internets, a quote to send Beck out with:

"A toy is not considered sold when we sell it to a store. A toy is not sold when a parent buys it. A toy is only considered sold when it is loved by a child."