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

Consumer safety: What can you (a manufacturer) live with

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fashion-Incubator User Forum Forum Index -> CPSIA & Consumer Safety
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Eric H
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 206
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:01 pm    Post subject: Consumer safety: What can you (a manufacturer) live with Reply with quote

Folks, if we get our day in front of Congress with nothing to offer but pleas, we aren't going to get what we want. And after wandering around to see what everyone wants, it is obvious that we are too fractured to put together a coherent offer. One person wants an exemption for size, someone else wants them to be satisfied with component certification, someone else wants licensing, someone else wants an exemption for Oeko-Tex or EN71 or REACH.

There are tradeoffs with all of these. I'm interested in finding out what you think you can/can't live with, why that will/won't satisfy the intent of the law. Please keep it on topic and pithy: at this point, we should be brainstorming, not debating. Please take debating to a different thread; I will edit these ruthlessly! What we need here are ideas, fast, furious, silly, and lots of them.

I'm a big fan of silly. Playful is creative. Creative collaboration takes us places we haven't been. Congress does not go there very often. We should take them.


Last edited by Eric H on Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:00 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Miracle
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Location: CA

PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think a good middle ground would be to allow component OR unit testing, as long as the chosen method resulted in all the items in a product being tested and certified.

This would allow a manufacturer to use supplier certification for component testing in lieu of tests they commissioned. This would also allow groups of manufacturers to commission tests on components that they all used, thus eliminating the need to test repeatedly.

Based on the response to this law, it seems that each industry would even be open to their appointed association maintaining databases of certified materials from certified suppliers. This would be for use by manufacturers as a recordkeeping method, not necessarily something legislated.

I also believe that each industry should be able to submit, subject to CPSC approval, their industry tests that cover the existing testing requirement. This would mean that if oeko-tex certification already covered those tests, it would be an acceptable test for satisfying the CPSIA.


Last edited by Miracle on Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:30 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eric H
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 206
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Component testing: works great for people who have controlled processes. Not worth a darn if too many people "forget" that they changed something or "didn't think it was a big deal". Hey, those are Swarovski crystals on that bib, aren't they? That may have been the cause of many of the Chinese-manufactured products that caused this mess in the first place.

Size/sales/volume exemption: Someone (Vesta) already made the point that it isn't going to matter much when a child swallows a lead button if your company only sells a few of these a year. Still, it's also true that your product is less likely to end up in the mouths of babes, as opposed to a mass-produced product where the errors could be multiplied by millions.

Exemption for recycled products. I am dubious. What if you're recycling very bad things? And jazzing it up with new lead crystals? Or dumping your illegal products this way (i.e. a lot that failed inspection)?

Safe harbor: From Rick Woldenberg's video (near the end). Can't see a problem with this. Liaison office, partnering with industry to develop standards without the specter of felonies and $100k penalties. Emphasis on encouraging good behavior rather than punishing bad guys.

Honor appropriate foreign standards and testing: I don't know how they map onto CPSIA. EN 71 (applies to toys), I'm not so sure about Oeko-Tex or REACH.

Licensing: Require manufacturers to take a class and pass a test for a license. Not sure how this would work. Does a principle officer have to pass the test, all non-exempt (salaried) employees, all employees? How do you keep someone in the org from undermining you (intentionally or accidentally)? How do you prevent the bad guys from scamming it (hiring a ringer to take the test)?

Exemption of science items for schools. For that matter, anything used under supervision. School books that don't leave the grounds? Probably too hard to distinguish from other books.

Exemption for all items in inventory on the date standards change.

Materiality standards: remember the issue with saccharin? It turned out that it didn't cause cancer in humans, only male rats who consumed the equivalent of 18,000 cans of soda per day?


Last edited by Eric H on Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blizzard77
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Differentiation of risk: Seems that there are typically at-risk components/substrates/materials and there are those that are typically low-risk. Certainly those that are typically at risk for containing significant lead should be subject to testing. By whom, I'm unsure.

I'd like to see the redundancy of testing eliminated. For example, if the market demands that printed fabrics need to be tested, then the supplier that values its childrens' market customers is probably (eventually) going to supply records to meet market demand. IF available from suppliers, I'd like to be able to use those test results.

XRF technology and other lower-cost testing made acceptable/available as well as capping the cost of third-party testing (as it is already rising).

So: Component testing accepted. Supplier testing results accepted for components. And low-risk components exempted from testing, period. Cost of lab testing regulated.

Personally, I would like to see testing only mandated for high-risk products (already mostly covered under lead paint and surface laws) AND for manufacturers grossing over a certain amount per year. But I know that would be too difficult to enforce.
Back to top
Pamela
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems that most of us here with clothing can live with the requirements being put into action as of 2/10/09 with "reasonable testing methods" and XRF technology for lead testing of fabrics without adornments. I would like to see this remain as the requirements even if the lead ppm is lowered on 8/16/09.
Back to top
Anne
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

-I'm with Miracle: component testing OR unit testing, whichever proves that the final product is safe (will vary depending on type of product).

-Allow suppliers to provide certification. Those who do will get more business, making it worth their while.

-Exempt low-risk components, or components where the scale used could not possibly cause harm (such as non-decorative thread in garments).

-Allow Oeko-Tex class 1, GOTS, and other international standards that meet or exceed CPSIA standards.

-Exempt sleepwear and bibs from phthalate testing if they do not contain any plastic or other phthalate-risk components (i.e., if they are cotton except for zipper, snaps, elastic). If they do contain any components with phthalate potential (like PVC dots), test only those components.

-Provide a reasonable way for small craftspeople to test their products, such as offering free or extremely cheap testing for batches under a certain quantity.

-Cap testing costs.
Back to top
Suna
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Exempt the fabric/garment which were dyed/screen printed in the US (Lead based paints and inks have been illegal in the US for over 30 years.)

Allow Control Union (SKAL)
Back to top
Melissa McKeagney
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

- low-cost XRF testing, provided it would be cheap enough (say $10 per item).

- component testing using XRF, again provided it was cheap enough for me to still make one of a kind (ooak) dresses.

- supplier testing as part of a "reasonable testing program". I contacted Westminster yesterday, as the bulk of my fabrics come from them, and the lead content is not detected in a limit of 1 part per million.

- low-risk items such as cotton cloth eliminated as part of a testing program period. To me, testing cloth without any surface coating just seems plain silly.

- destructive unit testing will put me out of business.

Melissa [edited by Eric]
Back to top
Fledgling
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe the best counter to the current CPSIA for which we can hope is a two-prong approach.
Prong 1: Sourcing from GOTS and �ko-Tex suppliers for textiles and REACH for notions and transfers, etc.
Prong 2: Warning labels.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:39 pm    Post subject: kiki Allthenumbers Reply with quote

What I am most interested in:

XRF testing allowed

Option to do component or unit testing

Option to use supplier certificates

All-natural unfinished products such as cotton, wool, wood, bamboo exempt from testing. Cotton dyed in the US exempt as well.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All-natural unfinished products such as cotton, wool, wood, bamboo exempt from testing.
Cotton dyed in the US exempt as well.

xrf testing

exception for ooak items (because i cannot really send in my ooak item for testing)

component testing = better than nothing but i am so, so small it will still be a hardship.

allowing inventory as of 2/10 to still be sold. maybe with labels? "this item has not been tested for lead content"

In an ideal world, I'd like the ability to make reasonable determinations as to my products' compliance and then maybe just label them that they've not been third-party tested for compliance with lead standards. Maybe I have to provide info to my consumers about what steps I am taking to ensure safety.
Back to top
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11099
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cross posted from "Guest" entry here.

Quote:
It was a rush job, and I didn't have time to research the civil penalty sections of the CPSA like I wanted to. But, here are the comments that I submitted in response to the request for comments regarding the criteria CPSC should use in determining civil penalties for noncompliance:

In addition to the factors stated in the request for comments, the CPSC should consider and address the following items in its determination of the civil penalty factors specific to the CPSA:

1. The CPSIA has such a broad scope as to make it nearly impossible to implement in a fair and just manner in the timeframes established by Congress. To date, the CPSIA has provided very little guidance to help manufacturers spanning the broad spectrum of children's products understand, much less comply with the law as written. The law is broad in scope and too vague to provide sufficient guidance to manufacturers. And, given the thousands of different types of products to which it applies, it seem impossible to expect the CPSC to issue clear guidance for each type of industry. This lack of guidance in the short term and the overall level of specific guidance available in general should be considered when determining civil penalties for a manufacturer of children's product who may, through no purposeful disregard of the law, find themselves out of compliance with it.

Manufacturers have a responsibility to comply with the law. However, the CPSC has the responsibility to implement the law in a way that helps manufacturers to understand how to comply. The adequacy of available guidance from the CPSC should be a factor in determining civil penalties.

2. Another factor that is particularly relevant to this legislation is the appropriateness of the penalty in relation to the size of the business of the person charged. There are thousands of small, home-based businesses that are affected by this legislation, a fact that Congress likely did not consider when drafting this legislation. Or perhaps Congress was simply not interested in the CPSIA's impact on such businesses, which is what the decision to suspend the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements for this legislation would seem to imply. Regardless, comments from more than 4500 small businesses, many of which are home-based sole proprietorships, can be found on a petition regarding the CPSIA, which can be viewed at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/economicimpactsofCPSIA/index.html

Given the far-reaching impact of this legislation and to avoid unintended and devastating consequences to all businesses that manufacture children's products, the scale of the business must be considered in determining civil penalties.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11099
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After a careful reading, I am going on the record that we support the proposal submitted by NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) to the CPSC. As I've long argued is necessary, it is broad and inclusive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Stephanie of armbibs.com
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:54 pm    Post subject: Amendments I'd like to CPSIA Reply with quote

Clarification/ amendments I'd like to see in the CPSIA:
Component testing
Supplier certification
Exclusions for specific substrates scientifically proven to pose little risk
AND
Communication options. Tagging requires product specific engineering. I am perfectly happy to supply full provenance for every component of my product, but attaching a permanent tag is awkward at best. Lots of products have product specific tagging regulations (set by the FTC) for this reason. Do you want a tag in your sock? Neither does a baby. I'd like technology to play a larger, more accredited role in communicating this information to my customers. My product can easily have my web address knit in it (in place of my company name); my packaging (although removable) has all sorts of information on it; full discloser can be made on my website in a manner that could even put customers in direct contact with my suppliers WITHOUT burdening the product with a tag that is so awkward it will likely be cut off by the user.
Back to top
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11099
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just a reminder to all: we are working on a response to the RFC over here. We're almost done but feel free to contribute if you think we may miss something you know about and we don't. thanks!
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
Page 1 of 1

 
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