New Law Will Severely Affect Toymakers- Please Read

[Joe Pack]

In February, 2009, a new law, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act , goes into affect. The purpose of this law is to require all toys sold in the U.S. to be tested by a third party to certify that they contain no lead or other hazardous materials. This Act is aimed at the proliferation of toys imported into the U.S. from China and elsewhere that have made so much news in the past couple of years...imported from countries that do not have the restrictions on hazardous materials in raw materials that we have in the U.S.

The CPSIA will require that a prototype of each toy be tested, with the testing running into four figures for each toy. If a company makes a toy truck, the toy truck must be tested. If the same company makes a toy car from the same materials, the car must be tested...and so on for each particular toy.

A consequence of this Act, which was aimed primarily at foreign exporters, is that it also applies to you and me; it applies to anyone making toys or any other device that is intended for use by any child under the age of 12, or that could reasonably be contacted by a child under the age of 12. The end result will be to make it illegal for any craftsman, home hobbyist, etc. to make for sale any toy without having that toy tested regardless of the materials used in that toy. The toy must be tested and certified as free from hazardous materials even if all materials used in the construction of the toy have individually been certified as safe by independent testing.

What this means for anyone making toys for sale is that a toy made from a piece of solid maple with zero finish must be tested and certified free of hazardous materials, even if the only material in the toy is maple. A wooden puzzle made from maple, then details painted on with certified lead free paints must be tested and certified. A doll house made from maple and cherry, then finished with a food grade shellac must be tested and certified. A doll made from scraps of the same material a child's dress is made from must be tested...You get the idea.

I understand and agree with the intent of the CPSIA...to stop the importing of products loaded with hazardous materials used in some parts of the world, but prohibited in the U.S. (and, I assume, Canada). That was the intent of the law. The unintended consequence, though, is to all but eliminate the production of toys by hobbyists like us who may sell a few of our toys at craft shows in order to pay for our hobby or to make a few extra bucks. Again, even though the individual materials we use have been certified as safe for sale and use in the U.S., the completed product made with these previously certified safe materials will be considered illegal to sell unless the individual product is tested and certified at the maker's expense.

Botom line...this act, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, will make criminals out of every one of us who makes a toy truck or rocking horse or doll house for children. I know this does not apply directly to everyone here, but should be a concern to everyone. This is a well intentioned act that was not thought out completely, and will have consequences for cottage industries and hobbyists all across the U.S. If the raw materials each are already certified as being safe, it is completely illogical to require testing of the end product.

Forturnately, it is not too late to act. Almost, but not quite too late. The CPSC commission is requesting input on desired changes, exceptions, etc. to this Act. The text of their request for input is available at the pdf link posted below. Even if you do not make toys, I strongly urge you to write to this commission supporting an exception to this Act if the toys made are made entirely with materials that are already tested and approved for sale in the U.S.

Please get involved. Toymakers should be a treasured part of our heritage, not criminalized for making a toy truck.

Information can be found at http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/ComponentPartsComments.pdf

p.s. The e-mail link within the pdf document did not link directly. If you choose to e-mail your comment, you will need to cut and paste the link into your e-mail address line

[Joe Chritz]

I started to wade through the act a bit but it hurt my head.

The section I found deals specifically with importers. Perhaps an email off to someone familiar with the act in that office would answer or one of our resident attorneys can take a looksee.

SEC. 102. MANDATORY THIRD PARTY TESTING FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN’S
PRODUCTS.
(a) MANDATORY AND THIRD PARTY TESTING.—
(1) GENERAL CONFORMITY CERTIFICATION.—
(A) AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (1) of section 14(a) (15
U.S.C. 2063(a)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) GENERAL CONFORMITY CERTIFICATION.—Except as provided
in paragraphs (2) and (3), every manufacturer of a product
which is subject to a consumer product safety rule under this
Act or similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any
other Act enforced by the Commission and which is imported
for consumption or warehousing or distributed in commerce

Joe

[Joe Pack]

Thanks for replying, Joe.

I had the same reacton initially...applies only to importers. Evidently, this is not the case. More information is available at the following URLs. One is for the Hand Made Wooden Toy Alliance, the other for a very large crafter's information page. Readers should check these out.

http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/

http://www.change.org/ideas/view/save_handmade_toys_from_the_cpsia

[Jamie Buxton]

... it applies to anyone making ... any ...device that .... could reasonably be contacted by a child under the age of 12....

Whew. That's far broader than just toys. It would include kitchen cabinets.

[Mitchell Andrus]

Whew. That's far broader than just toys. It would include kitchen cabinets.

It won't be long before the hardships placed upon manufacturers causes a roll-back. Either that or a few test cases will cause the rule to be suspended "pending further consideration" for just about forever. Really, most of these controls already exist in statute somewhere.

reasonably in contact...under 12. That includes EVERYTHING! Carpetting, cat food, drapes, paper plates, forks, car seats, formica, air freshener, toilet paper, soda cans, pillow stuffing, work boots, concrete, vinyl siding, party balloons.....

[Joe Chritz]

Before I get really worried about this I would really like to see some documentation from the agency itself that says local and domestic producers are also effected under this statue.

I have yet to find a section that doesn't mention importation. I am not an attorney and likely have missed some section somewhere.

One thing about reactionary legislation (which I despise greatly) is that things are often left off or missed all together.

Joe

[Mike Wellner]

Just a bandaid solution, China is the real problem and they won't acknowledge it in fear of --------when the Chinese have 3 Trillion of our debt.

[Paul Steiner]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I wonder how enforced this will be? Last year in the height of the lead toy problem I started making toys with my students to donate to toys for tots. This turned into a great project we would like to continue every year. We made 1000 toys this year and last and it bought us some great publicity.
I am wondering if the Marines will accept my donated toys if I do not get them tested?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102755.html

[Joel Goodman]

I read a news story that domestic manufacturers may be exempted if they make wooden toys that are finished with certain types of nontoxic finishes. Why don't we just make the folks that import Chinese stuff test it. Lead paint is still legal there so they paint stuff with it -- not much of a mystery. I don't think the government is the problem -- it's just not a well written law as it was passed.

[Thomas Knighton]

The idea of just testing imported toys won't happen for one reason above all others...it just makes to much sense!

If it makes sense, we can't do it. It's not the American way I guess ;)

[Jay Yoder]

I would hope there would be exemptions. Our local HS used the shop class to make toys for the "Toys for tots" program. It is for kids who are less-fortunate. I would hate to see our gov't do something so stupid as to change this tradition!

[Wilbur Pan]

Just a bandaid solution, China is the real problem and they won't acknowledge it in fear of --------when the Chinese have 3 Trillion of our debt.

Listen -- China is not the problem. The problem is our insistence on buying toys at a price that is too cheap to ensure that toxic materials are not used in their manufacture, wherever they might be made. Ensuring safe, quality toys costs money, no matter the country of origin.


The idea of just testing imported toys won't happen for one reason above all others...it just makes too much sense!


Why should we only test imported toys? Should we trust American workers who probably spend their off hours strung out on crystal meth to safely manufacture toys for our kids?

To make it clear, I certainly don't think that American workers are strung out on crystal meth. My point is that making blanket statements like this one or "China is the problem" are both blatantly unfair. Please think before blaming a manufacturing issue on an entire country and its people.

[Rick Fisher]

Gotta agree. China is not the problem. We are a society that buys on price. The tools we use in our hobby are a great example of that.

[Dave Anderson NH]

It's time for the standard politics warning folks.

Please remember that it is a violation of the SMC Terms of Service to enter into political discussions. Most threads like this start off just fine, and then slowly degenerate into strongly worded posts which violate the TOS and cause even more strongly worded replies. Eventually the thread has people calling each other names, attacking motives and beliefs, and we moderators severely edit the thread and warn the posters. At the end, high emotions have spiraled the thread out of control and the moderator staff locks and deletes the thread.

Please think carefully about what you write BEFORE you post. We appreciate your cooperation.

[David Keller NC]

All - Something to remember if you make toys for sale is that this defines you as a manufacturer. The consumer product liability law in the US is crafted so that a consumer that's injured by your product, whether correctly used or not, can recover actual damages from you in court.

It would seem that the new law specifically aimed at toys simply codifies that the product be tested and certified, which is in some ways a minor escalation of your liability should a toy injure a child. As far as I'm aware, the actual damages are recoverable regardless of whether the injury results from an intentional design feature on your part (for example, small parts that constitute a choking hazard) or an artifact of the material from which the toy is made. For example, a wooden toy thrown across the room whose wood shatters and the splinters result in an eye injury would still be consider your (the maker's) liability.

Something to think about if you make toys for sale to strangers out of your garage woodworking shop. It's for this reason that I only make toys for immediate family members, and though I've been asked before to make toys for others, I turn those requests down. I generally state that I don't have much experience ensuring the safety of toys, and the requesters usually stop asking at that point.;)

[Pat Germain]

There's lots of information about this issue on the web site for The Handmade Toy Alliance:

http://sites.google.com/site/handmadetoyalliance/

[J.R. Rutter]

Do you really think that this law will be enforced at craft fairs?

[Greg Pavlov]

The purpose of the site is to expand the list of materials of which a toy may be made to be exempt from testing and to change the ruling to allow importation of "handmade" items from other countries.
The folks behind the site *do* want imported items to be exempt. On an Etsy site there is a blurb that comes closer to stating what the site is about: "Did you know that many safe, natural toys & children's products made or imported by small US companies will disappear next year?"
The ruling, it appears, already allows exceptions for various materials. The letter that was put together to ask for additional changes in the ruling asks that the exceptions list be expanded. Obviously it would be reasonably easy to check whether the materials in a toy consist strictly of cut&sanded maple wood shapes, but if it is painted there is no guarantee that leaded paint wasn't used. That's a problem.
I don't know what is the right thing to do, but I do feel that the folks behind the site have a broader agenda than they appear to on first glance.

[Greg Peterson]

I'll let the legal beagles make a professional determination as to who this law impacts.

My assumption is that the hobbyist is not going to be required to provide a certificate proving the product passed all applicable federal regulations. Either by the consumer directly or by any organizing body representing a fair or 'farmers market'.

However, should a product be sold without being submitted to federally mandated testing and someone is injured, that hobbyist may want to secure the services of a lawyer.

So long as no one gets hurt, this new law doesn't appear to place any more burden on the casual, occasional, part-time toy maker. It's only another arrow in the quiver of a person predisposed to litigations.

[Andrew Joiner]

I would hope there would be exemptions. Our local HS used the shop class to make toys for the "Toys for tots" program. It is for kids who are less-fortunate. I would hate to see our gov't do something so stupid as to change this tradition!

I'm not a lawyer, but if you give a product away you should be OK. As long as you have enough personal liability insurance to cover your assets if sued.

If you sell a product, then the law looks at you differently.
If you sell even one product and that product is even REMOTELY part of an injury, illness or death you need commercial liability insurance.

[Joe Pack]

This is the most comprehensive treatment of this topic I have seen, including newspaper articles from around the country.

http://www.craftlister.com/groups/group_details.php?GroupID=141

[Mike Wellner]

Gotta agree. China is not the problem. We are a society that buys on price. The tools we use in our hobby are a great example of that.

Here I am going to state why China is part of the problem:

A) Nonexistant laws regarding the manufacture of consumer goods in the area of safety, so basically the problem is left to us, We are basically cleaning up their mess. Also environmental laws are non-existant, we have outsourced partly due to our stringient and unflexible evironmental regulations.

B) Rampant with corruption, Governmental officals are easily bribed

C) We have a habit of sacrificing safety for price.

D) Where does the money go into the end? Its used against us in the form of Military and Economic means.

[Wilbur Pan]

Here I am going to state why China is part of the problem:

A) Nonexistant laws regarding the manufacture of consumer goods in the area of safety, so basically the problem is left to us, We are basically cleaning up their mess. Also environmental laws are non-existant, we have outsourced partly due to our stringient and unflexible evironmental regulations.

That's not quite true. The problem is that it's the US that has nonexistent laws regarding the manufacture of consumer goods in the area of safety. Need an example? Try to determine if a rubber duckie has phthalates in it. That information is not required to be disclosed in the US.

One thing that never seems to get discussed is that the UK and EU import Chinese-made products as well, and they have much more stringent standards for product safety than we do in the US, so there really is no problem on the part of Chinese manufacturing to create products that are safe. This is all a business decision. The Chinese manufacturing sector knows that the UK and EU combined are actually a bigger market than the US, and it would be dumb to give that market up. So if they have to conform to EU safety guidelines, they will. The US doesn't require them to do so, so they don't.

Over the past few years, the emerging countries where much manufacturing has been outsourced, including China, have regularly been in contact with the EU in regards to the regulation of unsafe substances in consumer products. In fact, China has adopted the EU list of banned substances that cannot be used in the production of consumer electronics, with an exemption for products meant for export. What this means is that consumer electronics meant for domestic Chinese consumption actually are safer than the ones that are exported to the US. That's not the fault of Chinese manufacturers. That's the fault of the US for not having a similar list.

[John Schreiber]

I've tried to read up on this from the Internet and I'm confused.

Everything I can find says these new rules will only apply to imported toys. The exception is stories which have the Handmade Toy Alliance as their source. Even if is just imported items, the exclusion of handmade toys from around the world is a bad thing, but it's not the same thing as prohibiting the selling of toys at craft fairs etc.

Does anyone have any additional sources of information to help clarify this?

[Josiah Bartlett]

Why exclude handmade toys that are imported? Not every country has the same standards for low toxicity materials that we do, so a handmade toy from another country is just as likely to include lead or cadmium or something similarly nasty as something manufactured. How do you draw the line and enforce the "hand made" part of it anyway? Labor in the 3rd world is so cheap that a lot of manufactured goods made there would be considered "hand made", because they were assembled by humans in factories or in their homes.

It seems like if there was a tracability program for materials like there is in other industries that certain goods could be exempted from testing, but I think a blanket law that forces IMPORTED goods to be tested or certified to be low toxicity is a good thing. As long as domestically produced goods can be safely considered low toxicity due to the material stream being clean, seems fine to me.

[Charles Seehuetter Panama City]

Looks like the CPSC is listening and our wooden toys will be exempt from testing.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lead7-2009jan07,0,6917858.story

http://consumerist.com/5126354/hooray-cpsc-agrees-to-exempt-some-natural-items-from-product-safety-act

[George Sanders]

Corporate Fascism. Mussolini called fascism the merging of the corporate with the government. The corporations don't want any non-corporate entity such as small business to exist and this law "to protect the children" is another way to drive them out of the marketplace. I'm sure Wal-Mart loves this as it is sure to increase their toy sales.
As far as China is concerned; most of their "factories" are are prison run and owned by the red army. Buying Chinese goods only builds up their military might. How are American workers to compete against slave labor unless they too become slaves?

[Mike Henderson]

Corporate Fascism. Mussolini called fascism the merging of the corporate with the government. The corporations don't want any non-corporate entity such as small business to exist and this law "to protect the children" is another way to drive them out of the marketplace. I'm sure Wal-Mart loves this as it is sure to increase their toy sales.
As far as China is concerned; most of their "factories" are are prison run and owned by the red army. Buying Chinese goods only builds up their military might. How are American workers to compete against slave labor unless they too become slaves?
Two comments:

1. This law was a knee jerk reaction to lead paint used on imported toys. The toys were sold by some of the major US toy companies.

2. You obviously do not know much about China and Chinese companies. Toy companies in China are owned by Chinese entrepreneurs, not the Red Army. While they don't pay much to the workers, the workers are definitely not slaves.

Mike

[Rich Enders]

As per the article in USA Today, page 3A, Friday, January 9, 2009, this will affect clothing, toys, and shoes. As presently drafted it would include sales of used as well as new items. It would affect consignment shops, online retailers, Craig's list and even garage sales.

It is hard to believe that any administration will allow Goodwill Industries to go out of business.

[Larry Edgerton]

Listen -- China is not the problem. The problem is our insistence on buying toys at a price that is too cheap to ensure that toxic materials are not used in their manufacture, wherever they might be made. Ensuring safe, quality toys costs money, no matter the country of origin.
.
I would agree that is the root of "our" problem, the market driven need in America to buy the most possible for the least amount possible, no matter what the real world cost to our future generations.

We, as a country, with help from corporations with preditory business models such as WalMart, created the modern China. Have we done them a service? Only time will tell but what we have done with our personal greed, this need for the most product with no thought to the conditions that it comes from, is to destroy our own manufacturing base, the true strength of our country.

All that we are seeing now is a direct result of an economy based on service, where there is no added value applied with more and more of the available jobs. We passed a point last year where there are more retail jobs than there are manufacturing jobs. This can not be maintained in a country this size, it is an economic impossibility.

If you are a paper pusher, you are not adding value. To add value you need to take a raw material and turn it into a product, that is added value. You have taken say a lump of clay, and turned it into a pot. That clay is now worth more, hence added value. The people that man the office are a necessary part of the whole, but they do not add value, they draw from that added value. We are upside down with white collar jobs.

In an attempt to buy more/ sell more we have created and educated our own competition. But at what cost? To us? To them? Where will this economic spiral end when it reaches its point of failure, it is in itself little more than a huge ponzi sceme that will eventually run out of players.

People laugh at me for my caution of where I buy my products from, and think that I can not possibly make a difference. They are correct, but I choose not to be a part of the problem, and many more are seeing that the investment schemes and profiteering, exportation of manufacturing jobs at the expense of a well paid workforce is coming back to haunt us, and only you and I can change it as our government is bought and paid for. And it is not necessarily American currency.

[Kelly C. Hanna]

You are all worrying about nothing when it comes to hobbyists and their toys. First off you are not selling them to anyone right? Then you are not the focus of this law. It is being implemented to prevent importers from manufacturing willy nilly without regard to toxins.

Craft fairs? Not a chance that they are going to be held to this new standard. Who would enforce this at thousands of craft fairs every week in this huge country? Commen sense tells you this would not be possible. As I see it this only pertains to very large toy companies who are fattening their bottom line by buying cheaply made toys in other countries and bringing them here.

People who make toys for others in their own shops will likely never have anything to worry about.

[Paul Steiner]

http://www.wyff4.com/money/18453746/detail.html


The last line is particularly interesting. I would think that regulation of this is not possible. Also what about donating toys? Does the law apply? Also there are alot of artists and craftsmen that make high end toys, puzzles, nic-naks, these are sold as display pieces and paperweights. Do these need testing just incase they get in the hands of a child and are used as a toy?