LumberJocks

Toy Safety - Legal requirements - Read

  • Advertise with us
Blog entry by Karson posted 12-29-2011 06:12 PM 5290 reads 5 times favorited 14 comments Add to Favorites Watch

I’m not a lawyer, I’m not passing on legal advice.

However, the US Government has passed some legal requirements to insure that items made for children are safe. There has been lead and other heavy metals put in paint and metal parts of children jewlery. To insure safety, new requirements were enacted that required third party testing of a sample unit to insure that they were safe.

That testing was estimated at as much as $10,000 per item. For small batch manufacturers that was a business killer.

I’m not a manufacturer but a member of a toy making operation in the Mason Dixon Woodworkers.

I joined an organization that was part of a lobbying effort during the bill modification. The bill has now been finished and has an implemenation date of 1/1/2012 the CPSC – Consumer Product and Safety Commission is launching a registry for Small Batch Children’s Product Manufacturers.

The following is a copy of the email I received.
——————-

The CPSC released its small batch registration procedures on Friday.
See http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12073.html . Follow the link to register your business. More info is at http://www.cpsc.gov/info/toysafety/smallbatch.html .
Remember, registration is required in order to be exempted from lead in substrate and ASTM toy safety testing.
We will do our best to support you regarding the registration process. Please feel free to post questions, comments and concerns on the forum. Also, email Neal Cohen, Small Business Ombudsman, directly for additional information (NCohen@cpsc.gov).

HTA Board
_

If you feel that you are going to be impacted because of items that you make and sell or giveaway you should read about the requirements and make your own determination.

-- I've been blessed with a father who liked to tinker in wood, and a wife who lets me tinker in wood. Southern Delaware karson_morrison@bigfoot.com †



14 comments so far

View BarbS's profile

BarbS

2434 posts in 2775 days


#1 posted 12-29-2011 06:28 PM

Thank you for that, Karson. I grit my teeth over it, but it is useful information to stay ahead of any problems. Thanks for sharing it.

-- http://barbsid.blogspot.com/

View JonJ's profile

JonJ

163 posts in 2529 days


#2 posted 12-29-2011 06:57 PM

So will small manufacturers be exempt? i went to the link, but was not sure what to make of it.

-- Jon

View Peter Oxley's profile

Peter Oxley

1426 posts in 2564 days


#3 posted 12-29-2011 07:11 PM

<rant>
So this regulation was directed at imported toys that kept turning up with lead and other toxins, but domestic companies got swept up in the new regulations, too (fortunately small batch manufacturers banded together to save their companies from financial ruin).

Mattel (one of the largest importers of Chinese toys, the company associated with several recalls of dangerous toys, and one of the wealthiest toy companies) won an exemption from third-party testing and is doing in-house testing.

Meanwhile, if you look at the labels on a lot of Chinese import items for kids they have a new tag that says, “Not a toy. Not intended for children 14 or under.” We saw that tag several times this year, and my kids even found it on a Dora the Explorer earings and necklace set. Dora the Explorer is not for children under the age of 14? Really? So Chinese companies can continue to produce toxic items as long as they say that they aren’t for kids.

So basically this law causes US companies to face all kinds of extra regulation and paperwork (and testing for larger companies), while the products that were originally targeted by the regulation haven’t changed except for the addition of a little disclaimer.
</rant>

-- http://www.peteroxley.com -- http://north40studios.etsy.com --

View Karson's profile

Karson

34891 posts in 3090 days


#4 posted 12-29-2011 08:19 PM

Yes JonJ we fall in the “B” column of items that we make.

Peter I hadn’t seen those tags. I have to search them out.

-- I've been blessed with a father who liked to tinker in wood, and a wife who lets me tinker in wood. Southern Delaware karson_morrison@bigfoot.com †

View David Craig's profile

David Craig

2135 posts in 1798 days


#5 posted 12-29-2011 11:49 PM

Kind of an irony that small toy manufacturers, in this country, have more access to using lead as a substrate and not in a finish, yet we would have to comply to the testing of the finish but not the substrate…

Thanks for the update Karson,

David

-- There is little that is simple when it comes to making a simple box.

View Karson's profile

Karson

34891 posts in 3090 days


#6 posted 12-30-2011 12:56 AM

David Careful for putting suggestion in their head. I mean it could also be suggested that you test the glues used, and how about the wood species that might be toxic if eaten.

-- I've been blessed with a father who liked to tinker in wood, and a wife who lets me tinker in wood. Southern Delaware karson_morrison@bigfoot.com †

View Peter Oxley's profile

Peter Oxley

1426 posts in 2564 days


#7 posted 12-30-2011 01:12 AM

Karson – I forgot to say “thanks” for posting this valuable info!

-- http://www.peteroxley.com -- http://north40studios.etsy.com --

View David Craig's profile

David Craig

2135 posts in 1798 days


#8 posted 12-30-2011 01:53 AM

Sorry Karson, I forgot politicians can read…(said very much tongue in cheek…:)

-- There is little that is simple when it comes to making a simple box.

View Joe Lyddon's profile

Joe Lyddon

7799 posts in 2741 days


#9 posted 12-30-2011 02:03 AM

It would seem to me that if a small business (any business) making toys for children, could prove that:

”All materials used to produce our toys are not hazardous to anyone’s health regardless of age!”
... and have that statement on their Labels.

That would be enough and the products would NOT need continuous testing… The Government could come in and INSPECT the materials to be sure the statement was true and that would be the end of it. PERIOD!

If a business was found to be in violation, THEN, the book could & should be thrown at them… and if it forces them out of business, GOOD!

But, to concoct an on-going testing requirement such as this is such a waste, it really makes me sick to CONTINUALLY see this type of crap STILL HAPPENING!

Please God… Help our Government… Give them brains!
Amen.

-- Have Fun! Joe Lyddon - Alta Loma, CA USA - Home: http://www.WoodworkStuff.net ... My Small Gallery: http://www.ncwoodworker.net/pp/showgallery.php?ppuser=1389&cat=500"

View Karson's profile

Karson

34891 posts in 3090 days


#10 posted 12-30-2011 02:36 AM

Joe: I can read your comments and agree with you, BUT, we also know that their are many who would do any crap that they want to make money. (Read between the line with diluting baby formula with Melamine) And the government doesn’t want to pay for the testing.

The requirement state that you need to test a item from a production run and if you change anything then you need to test again. They could state that the paint mfg changed the formulation after it was tested. But a certificate is supposed to be passed with the item to state that the MFG has tested it to be safe.

At this point I’m not sure if the Manufacturer keeps the form or is it passed to the wholesaler, or dealer or final customer. There is also some information about second-hand selling of products. (Flee markets, charity sellers, second hand stores) Those items didn’t impact me so I didn’t research those items.

The original law was passed many years ago and then it was revised in some areas to make testing a requirement. I never read the final bill because it always stated things like this Change Para 2 Page 181 with the following ”. . . ” It’s hard to understand what is the requirements when they never publish a complete revised bill.

The testing requirements were required for 2009 then defered to October 2010, then December 2010, then 2011 on some of the requirements and it finally stated that it was supposed to start in October 2011. But then didn’t have any requirements as to the actual testing so you won’t suppose to get in trouble until Jan 1,2012

And as you see now they are finally posting the registration requirements on the day before Christmas.

You can probably get in trouble by just breathing. My name is probably on some government list now because I’m writing about it.

I just received an email from the CSPC stating that my registration was incomplete because I didn’t give an email address that was part of our organization. Whereas the form stated to give a personnel email address to facilitate their contacting me. So I replied and we’ll see what happens next.

The original form didn’t require a signature but the revised form wants a signed form stating that I’ve got the authority to discuss this item with them. Whereas they didn’t require anyone to sign that they had authority to fill out the form.

Government in action.

-- I've been blessed with a father who liked to tinker in wood, and a wife who lets me tinker in wood. Southern Delaware karson_morrison@bigfoot.com †

View Grumpy's profile

Grumpy

19562 posts in 2540 days


#11 posted 12-30-2011 05:14 AM

Looks like someone let the lawyers loose Karson
Here’s what they did to Christmas

To whom it may concern,
I wanted to send some sort of holiday greeting to friends but it is difficult in today’s world to know exactly what to say without offending someone. So I met with my lawyer yesterday, and on advice I wish to say the following without prejudice, fault, guilt or admission:

Please accept, with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non addictive, gender neutral celebration of the summer solstice holiday practiced with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious / secular persuasions and / or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all .

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2012, but not without due respect for the calendar of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make our country great ( not to imply that Australia is necessarily greater than any other country ) and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference.

By accepting this greeting, please be advised that you are accepting these terms :

This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable on the proviso that there is no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her / him or others and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. The wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

Best Regards ( without prejudice )

Name withheld ( Privacy Act )

-- Grumpy - "Always look on the bright side of life"- Monty Python

View Joe Lyddon's profile

Joe Lyddon

7799 posts in 2741 days


#12 posted 12-30-2011 06:52 AM

R O F A L M A O !!

-- Have Fun! Joe Lyddon - Alta Loma, CA USA - Home: http://www.WoodworkStuff.net ... My Small Gallery: http://www.ncwoodworker.net/pp/showgallery.php?ppuser=1389&cat=500"

View clieb91's profile

clieb91

3292 posts in 2624 days


#13 posted 12-31-2011 04:49 AM

@Grumpy- LOL!

Karson, Thanks for posting I have been watching this on and off for the past few years now and wondering how it would impact the small woodworker. I will be taking a look at this with my wife to determine how it may effect some of the things we make.

CtL

-- Chris L. "Don't Dream it, Be it."- PortablePastimes.com (Purveyors of Portable Fun and Fidgets)

View Don Clark's profile

Don Clark

21 posts in 1206 days


#14 posted 01-20-2012 12:00 AM

In general I say the testing is a good thing. If there weren’t, there would be loads of tainted meat, ecoli veggies, and so on. Without testing people only find out there’s a problem when load of people turn up sick or dead. I’d rather not have my kids be in the group that discovers the problem. I’d rather not have my kids dying in textile sweatshop fires – that happened in this country before the dumb old government stepped in and put safety regulations in place. OSHA is the devil until the eyewash station saves your sight or that mandated fall protection saves your life.

But as a maker of kids toys, the testing would be burdensome. As I read the requirements, I wouldn’t use surface coatings on the products.

-- Don, www.happybungalow.com

Have your say...

You must be signed in to post the comments.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

HomeRefurbers.com

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

GardenTenders.com :: gardening showcase