Will The Children Be Safer Naked?
Alana Semuels writes for the LA Times about new "safety" regulations set to take effect next month that could force thousands of retailers and thrift stores to throw away piles and piles of children's clothing:
The law, aimed at keeping lead-filled merchandise away from children, mandates that all products sold for those age 12 and younger -- including clothing -- be tested for lead and phthalates, which are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable. Those that haven't been tested will be considered hazardous, regardless of whether they actually contain lead."They'll all have to go to the landfill," said Adele Meyer, executive director of the National Assn. of Resale and Thrift Shops.
The new regulations take effect Feb. 10 under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which was passed by Congress last year in response to widespread recalls of products that posed a threat to children, including toys made with lead or lead-based paint.
Supporters say the measure is sorely needed. One health advocacy group said it found high levels of lead in dozens of products purchased around the country, including children's jewelry, backpacks and ponchos.
Lead can also be found in buttons or charms on clothing and on appliques that have been added to fabric, said Charles Margulis, communications director for the Center for Environmental Health in Oakland. A child in Minnesota died a few years ago after swallowing a lead charm on his sneaker, he said.
...There is the possibility of a partial reprieve. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is responsible for enforcing the law, on Monday will consider exempting clothing and toys made of natural materials such as wool or wood. The commission does not have the authority to change the law but can decide how to interpret it.
But exempting natural materials does not go far enough, said Stephen Lamar, executive vice president of the American Apparel and Footwear Assn. Clothes made of cotton but with dyes or non-cotton yarn, for example, might still have to be tested, as would clothes that are cotton-polyester blends, he said.
"The law introduces an extraordinarily large number of testing requirements for products for which everyone knows there's no lead," he said.
How about we leave it to parents to actually...parent? When I was growing up, there was some problem with the milk in Michigan, so my mom paid extra for Alta-Dena milk from California from the health food store. Parents should educate themselves about which toys potentially contain lead, and make the decision about what to buy, same as they decide what age their kid gets to cross the street without them and all the rest. Manufacturers can choose to put their products up for testing, same as manufacturers do with the UL listing. Otherwise, just when the economy is particularly terrible and people need to shop at thrift stores for kids' clothes and keep their businesses going, a lot of people are going to be in a lot of trouble.
Take my neighbor's toy company, for example. She makes board games out of organic cotton with vegetable dyes. The pieces are wood. Wood that doesn't come from the lead tree. Hers is yet another small business that will be out of business if these regulations aren't drop-kicked. Tammy Vigil writes for Fox about toys needing to be tested for lead:
For the first time, toymakers and those who create goods for children, will have to pay an independent third party to test for chemicals in their products. The change spurred after scares from tainted toys made in China.A group called Handmade Toy Alliance is coming out against these new regulations. They have members all over the country, including at least three in Colorado.
Jennifer vanVorst of Denver owns Turtle Park Tots. She makes and sells baby and toddler accessories, like bibs, blankets and changing pads, out of her basement.
She supports new stringent testing for lead, but not for everyone--and not at the huge expense.
"As of February 10, everything I make has to be certified its been tested for lead," she says.
But she only uses fabrics--some organic--and none which contain lead or one of six banned chemicals called phthalates.
"The sense I get from the law is a knee jerk reaction to Mattel and the testing going on and finding so much lead," says vanVorst.
She sees it as a one-size-fits-all solution after recalls of thousands of imported toys with lead paint in 2007.
It's testing that will cost vanVorst $600-$700 per $10 bib to test. "For a company like me. I can't take a hit like that. I'm not making a huge profit."
I dunno. Whenever I hear of a new regulatory requirement, I always wonder who stands to get clobbered who's going to benefit. As Ms. Alkon said, used clothing concerns will take a big hit and small toy makers are going to be in trouble.
Large manufacturers of new clothing and toys, of course, will be better positioned to absorb the cost of new regulations. With consumers being forced to buy new stuff rather than serviceable but "unsafe" used items, I would bet the large concerns are perfectly happy to have some of their competition pushed out of business.
Of course, all this is off the top of my head, and I'd be happy to hear counterarguments.
old rpm daddy at January 5, 2009 6:19 AM
I could be wrong, but I have my doubts about whether this law would apply to material already in existence. Such laws almost always apply only to newly manufactured or imported items and rarely apply retrofitting.
Dennis at January 5, 2009 6:58 AM
I just e-mailed an excerpt from this blog post to my Congressman for his staff's take. His office is normally very responsive to constituent inquiries. We'll see what I get back.
Dennis at January 5, 2009 7:10 AM
ORD -
There is nobody who appreciates the power of big government more than big business.
After all, why compete when you can have your competitors legislated out of existence?
brian at January 5, 2009 8:01 AM
Think I'll email my congressman too. This sounds patently absurd on it's face. How many kids eat their clothes???? How can it be better to send crap to the landfill than let someone use it?
momof3 at January 5, 2009 8:08 AM
momof3 - could the lead from the fabric somehow be absorbed through the skin?
I'm no scientist so I haven't a clue. Just an idea.
Gretchen at January 5, 2009 8:23 AM
Since all the recent problems involve product either built or sourced from China, wouldn't the simpler solution entail inspecting, regulating, or banning Chinese product?
Or is that crazy talkin?
brian at January 5, 2009 8:29 AM
Yea brian love the logic! Lets trade one degree of bullying thru legislation for another.
I also love it! Lets make raising children even more expensive. Before you could give your two year old some old shoes or handme downs. But the law is going to protect you so now you have to spend 50.00 dollars on some new Nikes for your kid that can not even run. $50 that can go towards medical, food, or heck a toy.
In the end this will only hurt the consumer as the costs and losses will be passed on to them. Congrats that 10.00 dollar Salvation Army skirt is now 20.00 dollars.
John Paulson at January 5, 2009 8:48 AM
There's no problem so bad that legislation can't make it worse.
Just like Sarbanes-Oxley solved *so* many problems.
BlogDog at January 5, 2009 9:05 AM
John -
China has shown repeatedly that it has no regard for quality standards. For some reason, nobody seems to be able to hold the companies that import such merchandise responsible. What other answer do you have? Should we allow the Chinese to continue poisoning our dogs?
The solution that HAS been passed is asinine. It does nothing to protect those it seeks to protect, and does them appreciable harm. It's almost as though Mattel and the other importers of defective Chinese goods wrote the bill and handed it to Congress and said "we'll be good, we promise."
How many people actually believe that the "testing organizations" will be any less corrupt than the ratings agencies that gave AAA+ ratings to MBSes?
The federal government DOES, however, have one method outlined in the Constitution for dealing with such a thing - and that is to forbid the entry of such goods as do not meet our safety and environmental requirements.
BlogDog - don't get me started on SOx. Basically HIPAA for accountants.
brian at January 5, 2009 9:19 AM
Amy, I have a suggestion. Since the Speaker of the House is from California, why don't you play your sindicated columnist card and ask her office for their explanation, and what, if any, mitigating steps are envisioned to curb any unintended consequences of this law? Given your relatively higher public profile than the rest of us, maybe you might be better placed to get a meaningful response?
Dennis at January 5, 2009 9:20 AM
OK, lots o' this stuff sorts itself once you sit and think it through. The law should be kicked indeed because it is a kneejerk, but that doesn't make the essence of the question wrong... so, momof3, your kids never put their clothing in their mouth? When my 2 were teething they constantly had something, often the front of thir shirt or onsie, in their mouth. Lead poisoning is a cumulative thing, and that is the worry. Small children put EVERYTHING in their mouth...
On the other hand, Amy, I think you are way off base here. How would a parent KNOW if a toy had lead in it? Because they trust the maker of the toy? How does the maker of the toy know that everything they make has no lead exposure? They often trust other people up the supply chain, who trust an originating manufacturer... you can see how this goes. How does the parent tell? Just because it is made naturally doesn't mean that the person making it knows for sure there is nothing harmful. You'd be surprized at what things are sprayed on even organic cotton to harvest it.
So, why not cut the kneejerks on both sides, because when we pull both knees we fall over...
Instead of testing every toy or thing for lead, why not have classes that don't need testing? Like things made out of wood, that have vegatable dye from a tested source in their manufacture? Once the dye is certified, is OK. Same with types of clothing with known sourcing. But you have to know a LOT of it. Where does the elastic come form, and IMPORTANTLY where do the buttons and buckles come from? #1son cut his teeth on the buckles of his osh'kosh overalls. It'd be good to know that those buckles were made in a plant where they certified that they didn't have lead in the manufacturing of the buckle.
Think about it this way: the buckle is just a steel stamping, so? Then they solder a little pot metal flower to it. OK, now we have a problem. The pot metal could have lead, or the solder could have lead... see where I am going? Without some testing there we could have a problem. Seems like the best solution is to test the source, but there has to be some balance to this.
The issue with older used stuff is that you don't know it provenance. That is why it is not a good idea to buy a used car seat. If it is old enough the buckles can fail, or the webbing can fail etc. I'm an edumacated consumer, I know this. Not everyone does. So, how are you going to make sure that harmful toys don't stay in the used sales stream? I don't know the best way to go about this. I do know a lot of people who don't second guess buying manufactured stuff, because they figure the government must be looking out for them, when it never really has. Seems like a little education might go a long way.
SwissArmyD at January 5, 2009 9:28 AM
Regulating items sold in thrift stores is ridiculous and impossible. You might as well just outlaw thrift stores. And what about rummage sales?
Karen at January 5, 2009 9:38 AM
"Could the lead from the fabric somehow be absorbed through the skin?"
Very unlikely. Only lead that's part of an organic chemical like leaded gasoline is readily absorbed through the skin. For everything you wanted to know about lead exposure, go here:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/lead/pbroute_exposure2.html
Martin at January 5, 2009 10:11 AM
I agree with SwissArmy. I research every single thing that I buy for my daughter. I also don't buy anything that has been made in China. (More a personal preference than a safety reason) Nothing in this world is 100% safe, and I realize that, but there are things that parents and consumers can do to facilitate their safety & health.
This legislation is a knee jerk reaction that isn't going to solve the problem. I've also emailed my congressman and senator. Maybe someone will listen, but I doubt it.
Truth at January 5, 2009 10:25 AM
NO doubt my kids put their clothes in their mouth. They do so with many things. ANd every time they hear "that's not food. Take it out". Parenting. We also don't buy overalls with buckles, or anything really that has needless decoration on it. Choking hazards, you know.
I've asked myself why we still allow chinese goods in. They've managed to poison such a wide variety of goods. I check to make sure what I buy is not from there.
I don't buy a lot of mass-manufactured toys, they tend to be flimsy crap. We do have a stable full of barbies, though. I guess, being that I buy used whenever humanly possible, I think this law sucks. I will even buy used undies. They're washeable-a little bleach, they're good to go! And Princess undies for the lil'uns are soo pricey.
momof3 at January 5, 2009 10:39 AM
The pieces are wood. Wood that doesn't come from the lead tree.
Loved that.
Shawn at January 5, 2009 7:47 PM
1. You can never protect kids from trace amounts of toxins. Ever. Get rid of so-called lead in the clothes and the will be out in the backyard eating dirt that has been exposed to pesticides and whatever else. So at some point you have to draw the line at what you are really protecting your kids from. Researching everything the child has? That's fine until they take their first steps outside the house and discover the world.
2. Amy - as for your mom that actually "parented"...um...hate to say it but your mom was a mom of her times and probably did many things that would be considered barbaric now! Like putting you in a car without a car seat or drinking while pregnant or smoking while pregnant, exposing you to second hand smoke, giving you lan darts, having a crib that is poorly manufactured with bars too far apart etc... It's really not a reflection of her being a bad parent so please don't insinuate that other people are terrible parents because they don't do something according to your specifications (you are not an authority on raising children...).
K at January 6, 2009 8:16 AM
Apparently this hit everywhere on the web at one time. I have got info about it from about 6 different groups. They have not decided the final wording or enforcement. So writing a legislator could have real impact on it at least not applying to used items. Definately worth the 2 minutes to do it!
momof3 at January 6, 2009 1:39 PM
Leave a comment