FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Swarovski lead discussion
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fashion-Incubator User Forum Forum Index -> CPSIA & Consumer Safety
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lisa Bloodgood
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it would make sense if the law weren't applied retroactively to existing inventory, especially existing inventory known to be safe, more or less, under the old law.

But, those things with Swarovski crystals, I don't know. Swarovski maybe could issue a cert or statement about how safe or unsafe they are and how well they'd stay glued to something.

(For that kind of crystal bead for making jewelry, the Swarovski ones are way prettier, sparklier, and nicer than the non-Swarovski ones.)
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lisa B wrote:
I think it would make sense if the law weren't applied retroactively to existing inventory, especially existing inventory known to be safe, more or less, under the old law.

But, those things with Swarovski crystals, I don't know. Swarovski maybe could issue a cert or statement about how safe or unsafe they are and how well they'd stay glued to something.

(For that kind of crystal bead for making jewelry, the Swarovski ones are way prettier, sparklier, and nicer than the non-Swarovski ones.)


Swarovski's statement:

"Recently, there has been an increased regulatory focus on potential human exposure to lead from various consumer products, including jewellery. Crystal has unique properties. The crystal manufacturing process creates a matrix which inhibits the mobility of lead. In other words, lead is bound into the structure of the crystal. Because of this structure, lead crystal poses no significant risk of excessive lead exposure to human health via surface contact (hand to mouth), mouthing or even ingestion. Indeed, Swarovski crystals have been tested under a variety of test methods for extractable lead. Test conditions and procedures do vary, but lead levels are well below regulatory limits even when the crystal is tested in an acid solution to maximize the release of lead.

Most authorities considering lead in crystal have concluded that limits on total lead should not apply to crystal. In 2006, for example, the California Attorney General settled a lawsuit brought in the state alleging exposure to lead from jewellery. The court-approved settlement agreement, as well as the later legislatively enacted Californian AB 1681, established limits for lead in metals and several other components, with stricter standards for jewellery intended for children 6 and younger. Significantly, in recognition of the limited risk of availability of lead from crystal, the settlement agreement as well as California AB 1681 allows the continued use of crystal without limitation in jewellery not intended for children. For children 6 or younger, up to 1 gram of crystal may be used in such jewellery. These same standards were adopted in the state of Minnesota. Similar bills are pending in other states, but some states are considering or have adopted new limits on lead that do not include an exemption for crystal.

Therefore you are in no danger in touching crystals. This is also the reason that there are no specific recommendations about touching or using crystal, however, we do not recommend that crystals are put in the mouth, swallowed, choked on or inhaled under any circumstances, or are used as children’s toys due to the small parts hazard."
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swarovski is walking a fine line here. Lead oxide is added to glass in different percentages to make leaded crystal glass. And it is stabile for the most part. Exposure to chemicals in wine, liquors, apple juice, orange juice, baby formula, all kinds of drinks (I read over the past few days on medical Web sites) will leach the lead from the crystal into the beverage to some incredible amount in a very short period of time. Not to mention saliva. So no crystal drinking vessels for kids or anybody else over the age of 12, who would prefer to avoid gout. So, yes, touching crystal is safe. Now, pass the law that will make children stop putting jewelry in their mouths it will all work out fine.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
So, yes, touching crystal is safe. Now, pass the law that will make children stop putting jewelry in their mouths it will all work out fine.


That brings up a good point... what about the difference between using Swarovski crystal beads in jewelry, which could easily find its way into a child's mouth, vs. using hotfix crystals on garments, which are not generally eaten.
Back to top
Eric H
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 199
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about NOT putting anything that could break off of children's clothing and find it's way into their mouth AT ALL?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J C Sprowls



Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 2004

PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, wouldn't that constitute a choking hazard and likely fail the pull tests?

Not only is it generally a good design principle to say nix to anything remotely risky, it *would* fail current and conventional tests - if they were performed in the first place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alison Cummins
Official Archivist
Official Archivist


Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Posts: 2300
Location: Canada QC Montreal

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:59 am    Post subject: Eating things Reply with quote

Wow, this is so weird all these people posting anonymously. Is it ok if I say it bothers me? I’m not used to it on this forum.

*** *** ***
Anyway, about sucking and eating clothes. Lots of tweens and teens have picking/pulling/sucking/chewing tics. It’s not normal the same way the gumming of a five-month-old is normal, but it is common. Most people have found a way around this by adulthood, whether by finding more productive or socially acceptable ways to channel their nervous energy; taking up smoking; cutting their hair short so they can’t chew it; or discipline, using expensive manicures to train themselves not to bite their nails. If you are going to make something for a population group that you know are likely to fidget with their clothes, then it’s responsible to ensure that their clothes can’t poison them.

Another thing about tweens is that they often have contact with younger children. They often even live in the same house with them. It’s not fair to expect eleven-year-olds to assume responsibility for ensuring that eleven-month-olds don’t poison themselves by playing with their clothes.

A manufacturer has no control over what happens with their products once they sell them. They can, however, respect safety standards that apply to everyone.

I don’t think it’s productive to argue against the concept of universal safety standards for consumer products. A bit of creativity in figuring out win-win ways to implement them, however, could go a long way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Miracle
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Location: CA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Another thing about tweens is that they often have contact with younger children. They often even live in the same house with them. It’s not fair to expect eleven-year-olds to assume responsibility for ensuring that eleven-month-olds don’t poison themselves by playing with their clothes.


Yeah, this entire law has me rethinking a lot of things. Even as an adult, when you hold a baby or young toddler they tend to have oral contact with your clothes, even by just sleeping against your chest with their mouth open. My five year old has a habit of chewing the necklines of her shirts--- which sometimes are MY shirts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J C Sprowls



Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 2004

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How 'bout we just make the bedazzler illegal? Can I get a fashionista amen?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Melissa Huhn
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lol! That comment made me smile -- Amen!
Back to top
Esther
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 1877
Location: ID Spudville

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are a lot of things I have seen kids put in their mouths that were never intended for their use. Pens (with the lids on), keys, styrofoam cups...... What about the glass of a door as they look out? I mean really, this law is so silly when you think about it. What about all of the toys in the children's play area at the library or the church nursery?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Lisa DOWNTOWN JOEY
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think I'm just going to affix Hot Fix crystals to everyone's xmas presents so I can deplete my inventory.
Back to top
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11029
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Esther wrote:
There are a lot of things I have seen kids put in their mouths that were never intended for their use.

This is why issues affecting California (haven't discussed that either) are particularly troubling. The move is toward expanding the product list to cover things children will commonly handle -like key chains- that aren't intended for them.

You know, we could solve this problem practically overnight if the law were expanded to include required testing for any product intended for humans regardless of age. Now that would get some attention!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You may or may not have seen this, but according to a Swarovski representive:

"...Swarovski crystals also meet the ASTM F963-03 standard on lead availability for toys."

I found the letter on:
http://jewelry-business-blog.com/jewelry_business/the-lead-jewelry-law-and-swarovski-crystals-a-letter-from-swarovski/
Back to top
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11029
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
I am def. not an attorney and could certainly be wrong, but I think the legislation applies to commerce

The CPSC has definitively ruled that "banned hazardous products" which these would be without the GCCs, cannot be given away either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fashion-Incubator User Forum Forum Index -> CPSIA & Consumer Safety All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group