First, kudos to Houston's ABC affiliate (KTRK). They interviewed a local crafter who runs a kids' clothing boutique that will close down on February 10, and she walked through all of the elements that will have to be tested on individual handmade garments to be in compliance with the law - upwards of ten different parts of a single garment, of which there are dozens if not hundreds in her shop. I spoke to her on the phone an hour ago and she noted that the documentation alone would make running a shop like hers impossible. She is among the many (us included) who find it ridiculous that individual elements - thread, elastic, fabrics - must each be tested in each end product, not because they might be unsafe individually (for then crafters could simply purchase materials that had already been certified) but because they might form a harmful substance, or rise above prohibited levels, only in combination. This is not real-world legislation. Here's her blog - if you're a crafter making children's products in the Houston or Austin area, you should get in touch with her.

Second, outgoing CPSC Public Affairs Director Julie Vallese held a pretty odd sit-down with Baltimore's NBC affiliate, WBAL in which she managed to say with a relatively straight face that the nation's thrift store and consignment shop owners had no obligation to test products, but that they should make "a business decision" and have "confidence" that the products they are selling meet the new laws, because if they are caught selling ones that aren't, they get a big fat fine (last I heard was $100,000, but she didn't say). I can only think of one "business decision" to make under such a business arrangement. Thanks to SaveKidsResale alerting us to this arresting, if maddening, interview. Heckuva job managing public information on that CPSIA bit, Julie. Heckuva job.

Read more about this issue in our predictions for the CPSIA's effect on the children's product industry.

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 have been getting a lot of questions from readers who are also small business owners and are trying to navigate the new rules of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act and determine the impact for their companies. Fortunately for all of us, Jennifer Taggart now has a detailed analysis up at The Smart Mama that goes through the new regulations in detail. Here's just a snippet from Jennifer's run-down:

Another critical part of the CPSIA is the phthalate ban. Effective February 10, 2009, certain phthalates are banned in children's toys and child care articles. A children's toy is a product intended for a child under 12 years of age for playing. A child care article is a product intended for a child under 3 years of age that facilitates sleeping or eating. In other words, if the product is used for sleeping, feeding, sucking or teething, then the phthalate ban applies. The CPSC has stated that the phthalate ban applies to pacifiers, teethers, bibs, crib mattresses, crib sheets and pajamas.

The good news is that this part of the law does NOT apply to existing inventory - only items manufactured after February 10, 2009. The bad news is that there isn't a easy technology to use for screening goods for phthalates like XRF for lead.

You can read the whole post here. This level of detail isn't for everyone, but if you make products for children, you'll definitely want to read it to get her take on things.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has formally requested comments on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. (If you're new to this issue and are wondering why anyone would be commenting, read this post about German toy company Selecta stopping U.S. distribution of their toys and this post on steps you can take to save natural and handmade companies.) Specifically, the CPSC says they're looking for comments and information regarding:

• How the risk of introducing non-compliant product into the marketplace would be affected by permitting third-party testing of the component parts of a consumer product versus third-party testing of the finished consumer product.


• The conditions and or circumstances, if any, that should be considered in allowing third-party testing of component parts.


• The conditions, if any, under which supplier third-party testing of raw materials or components should be acceptable.


• Assuming all component parts are compliant, what manufacturing processes and/or environmental conditions might introduce factors that would increase the risk of allowing non-compliant consumer products into the marketplace.


• Whether and how the use and control of subcontractors would be affected by allowing the third-party testing of component parts.


• What changes in inventory control methods, if any, should be required if thirdparty testing of component parts were permitted. Address receipt, storage and quality control of incoming materials, management and control of work-inprocess, non-conforming material control, control of rework, inventory rotation, and overall identification and control of materials.


• How a manufacturer would manage lot-to-lot variation of component parts, in a third-party testing of component parts regime, to ensure finished consumer products are compliant.


• Whether consideration of third-party testing of component parts should be given for any particular industry groups or particular component parts and materials.


• Explain what it is about these industries, component parts, and/or materials that make them uniquely suited to this approach.

Answer them all or pick your favorite, and don't be afraid to do so from the perspective of a consumer, if that's your position in all this - this affects you as well, and you have every reason to comment! Download the PDF comment instructions and share your views with the agency before these laws go into effect.

[Via]

The word is out: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act has cast such a wide net that many small businesses and natural toy companies are threatened with financial ruin by testing requirements that need to be overhauled if they are to be applied to them at all. Livelihoods, work-at-home arrangements, and the availability of handmade and natural products for our children are at stake. Here are five things you can do today to help force Congress to address the mess they've made before the law goes into effect on February 10, 2009.

1. Familiarize yourself with needed reforms. The Handmade Toy Alliance has proposed the following reforms to the CPSIA:

• Exempt toys made or imported in quantities under 5,000 per year by companies making or importing less than 50,000 total items per year, as well as toys made entirely in the U.S. and other countries with a strong safety regimen of their own (Canada, EU), and pair this with mandatory registration by companies and random auditing with stiff penalties (the way the EU does it).


• Assume that natural materials (wood, wool, silk, bamboo, cotton, and uncoated textiles) and food-grade materials (wood finishes made from beeswax and certain oils) are lead- and phthalate-free, and don't require them to be tested.


• Allow manufacturers to accept third-party test results for raw materials, and require company testing of products based on manufacturing levels rather than specific time frames.


• Don't require batch labeling for small runs of products not made from molded plastic, and don't require manufacturing dates to be a part of any labeling, as small batch toys are costly to label in this way.

You can read their full proposal on the Handmade Toy Alliance's website.

2. Tell your local news outlets that this is a local story. Look up Etsy sellers in your city or town, then call your local TV station or newspaper, ask for a business reporter, and tell them that you could help them identify at least X number of sole proprietors in your community who are about to be driven out of business if the law isn't changed. If you have a locally-owned toy store that carries natural toys, mention this too - they'd be a great interview for the same story. Local news desks are overworked and understaffed; if you can connect the dots on a timely topic you will probably see a story.

3. Make some phone calls. Phone calls are better than form letters, and if you get the person on the phone you might actually get some useful information you can share with others through the grapevine. Here are four calls you should make:

• Call your current U.S. Representative. Republicans and Democrats claim to care about nurturing small businesses, but new testing requirements encompass product areas highly unlikely to pose a risk for newly-banned chemicals. The new law needs to clearly articulate feasible and logical standards for small businesses and companies that already meet international (EU) standards.Tell them how you feel about what will happen to many of the SAHM, small businesses, and natural companies that are already doing their due diligence to ensure product safety. Find out if they've been voted out or are still in for the next session; if they'll be replaced, ask by whom and if you can contact them at the same number. You can find out who yours is and how to contact them here.


• Call Nancy Nord. She's the acting head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and she needs to hear from you. To reach her, call 301-504-7923 and ask for her; if she's busy, leave a brief, polite, but firm message.


• Call the CPSC ombudsman's office. The number is 888-531-9070.


• Call your Senator. Tell them you aren't pleased with the way the House wrote this bill or the fact that the Senate passed it in its current form, and that it is in dire need of reform before it sinks small businesses under exorbitant testing costs for products that are made using natural materials. You can locate contact information for your Senator here. If they're being replaced, ask them how to get in touch with their successor.

4. Join the conversation. Find Twitterers discussing the matter by searching for the #CPSIA hashtag. Browse new blog posts about the CPSIA and point others to them by giving them a bump on whatever social sharing or bookmarking software you use. (Links for giving a bump to this article are at the foot of this post - if you like this info, help spread it around!)

5. Sign some petitions. We believe that petitions are among the least effective steps you can take - the less effort it takes to make your voice heard, the less seriously your effort is taken by those you hope to impact; and signature rates inevitably underrepresent the number of concerned citizens, often vastly so - but it can't hurt, so here's one petition and here's another.