Do you make and sell handmade toys?

[CawMama]

If you do....there is a huge threat potentially heading our way. If passed by Congress, this legislation will force all small American, Canadian & European toymakers to pay for third party testing (which is approx. $4000) for EACH of the toys they produce and label each toy with a date and batch number.

I am so saddened by this. I know of, and work with, so many small toymakers who will be forced out of business should this legislation go into effect.

Please visit www.handmadetoyalliance.org for more info and to see how you can help spread the word.

[sanguine_speed]

The American Congress does not make Canadian law. We actually have our own Parliament and make our own law. Perhaps they would restrict imports, but that is very different from what you just said.

[sunanthem]

Holy Crap! This is outrageous!!! I make handmade toys on etsy and I will definately be writing letters and asking others to do the same.

[CawMama]

Originally Posted by sanguine_speed

The American Congress does not make Canadian law. We actually have our own Parliament and make our own law. Perhaps they would restrict imports, but that is very different from what you just said.

I guess I should have worded that differentl. From what I understand, the way it works in the US: if a business owner imports toys from other countries to sell here, they are considered the manufacturer. So, any business owner who buys toys from Canada or Europe for resale in the US would have to pay to have each toy tested.

[E.V. Lowi]

***What happens if an untested toy injures a child? ***

Many of the toys I see for sale on Etsy and HC are not suitable for households with young children. What recourse do the parents have if a child is injured?

Most of these small time toy makers do not have liability insurance nor any tangible assets in the event of a lawsuit. The consumer protection laws here in the US have been in place for a long time for good reason! Even so, many dangerous toys managed to slip through to store shelves anyway and cause injuries, sometimes resulting in death. I think tightening up on the regulations for the protection of children is a good thing!

Not every parent nor small time toy maker is aware of how the features of a toy can turn into a deadly hazard for a child. Choking on bendies and other small items with beads, charms, buttons, and so forth is a real possibility with some of these boutique toys. Hanging from a purse strap or silk scarf, eye injuries from wires or sharp wooden toys. The list is long. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I believe that the new laws will be put in place for good reason.

[gardenmom]

While I don't make or sell toys, this thread caught my eye as yet another way the government is taking the little guy's rights away in a way that will aid the very (big) businesses that cause the problems to begin with.

I am curious about why testing would/should cost $4000 per toy, ever. Even if this price includes "insurance" of some kind (the word 'certification' implies some kind of insurance), then I would think that should be based on exposure (# of units sold), not a flat rate per toy design, shouldn't it?

[Ruthla]

If this even passes, I wonder if there will be exceptions for very small companies (under a certain $ a year) or if there will be some kind of loophole (call the doll a "collectable" rather than a "toy" for example). You know, like you can sell untreated cotton "daywear" for infants but you can't call them "sleepers"?

[E.V. Lowi]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

If this even passes, I wonder if there will be exceptions for very small companies (under a certain $ a year) or if there will be some kind of loophole (call the doll a "collectable" rather than a "toy" for example). You know, like you can sell untreated cotton "daywear" for infants but you can't call them "sleepers"?

Has anyone actually seen the law as it is written?

For example, CA State law specifically excludes an individual who sews garments solo without employees or contract labor, from the classification of "manufacturer"in regards to the regulation of garments.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToObta...gistration.htm

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=2670-2674.2

QUOTE[ 2671. As used in this part:
(a) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation,
limited liability company, or association, and includes, but is not
limited to, employers, manufacturers, jobbers, wholesalers,
contractors, subcontractors, and any other person or entity engaged
in the business of garment manufacturing.
**** "Person" does not include any person who manufactures garments by
himself or herself, without the assistance of a contractor, employee,
or others;****

The Collector's Bear market has worked within the loophole mentioned by Rutha for years. Calling a small felted toy an ornament instead of a toy would let the consumer know that the product is not intended for unsupervised play by children, in the way that a toy is used.

[CawMama]

Here is a link to the legislation: http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/legislation.html

[E.V. Lowi]

Originally Posted by Carrin

Here is a link to the legislation: http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/legislation.html

Thanks!

ETA: No surprises there as it remained intact as it was proposed in the original. It will be interesting to see how this plays out for individuals who make toys and other children's products. I wouldn't give up on your businesses, yet.

[gardenmom]

I specifically asked them a question about tiny business, as a "consumer" (though I expect no answer). The legislation summary basically says that they have no budget and are already unable to answer the thousands of questions that companies have posed, and have no ability to assure compliance with the law at this point, despite the fact that manufacturers are already expected to be in compliance with it.

I will post the response if I get one...

[CawMama]

Dan, who has organized the Alliance, has gotten some very reasonable exceptions written up for submittal. Part of it proposes no mandatory lead testing for wooden toys that are treated with beeswax, tung oil, etc....

[Quirky]

Originally Posted by E.V. Lowi

***What happens if an untested toy injures a child? ***

Many of the toys I see for sale on Etsy and HC are not suitable for households with young children. What recourse do the parents have if a child is injured?

Most of these small time toy makers do not have liability insurance nor any tangible assets in the event of a lawsuit. The consumer protection laws here in the US have been in place for a long time for good reason! Even so, many dangerous toys managed to slip through to store shelves anyway and cause injuries, sometimes resulting in death. I think tightening up on the regulations for the protection of children is a good thing!

Not every parent nor small time toy maker is aware of how the features of a toy can turn into a deadly hazard for a child. Choking on bendies and other small items with beads, charms, buttons, and so forth is a real possibility with some of these boutique toys. Hanging from a purse strap or silk scarf, eye injuries from wires or sharp wooden toys. The list is long. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I believe that the new laws will be put in place for good reason.

This law won't save a single child from choking, hanging, etc. The law concerns lead paint, lead content, and phlalates (plastic softeners). It will require all manufacturers and importers of any products for children under the age of 12 years old to submit every product to a third-party lab for lead content testing, at a cost of at least $300-$500 per item. It requires unit testing, not component testing. So for example, a toy maker who uses hardwood and lead-free non-toxic red paint to make toy apples, toy tomatoes, and toy radishes will need to test the apple, the tomato, and the radish to comply with the law.

German toy company Selecta, which has been making safe, non-toxic toys for years, has already announced it will pull out of the US market as of the end of this year because of the cost of complying with the law.

eta: there is a part of the statute that has to do with choking hazards, etc. However, it's a completely separate part from the lead testing and in no way connected. So you don't have to put small, responsible companies out of business with lead testing costs in order to get the benefits of the sections on choking hazards.

[gardenmom]

Etsy just sent out an email today with an open letter, asking us to contact our reps and to leave comments in the forum thread linked from their blog post.

They've also invited the ombudsman of the CPSC to join them in the virtual labs for a chat. I'm curious to see if they get anywhere...

I'm also curious about how this bill passed and was signed into law without any press whatsoever. :

[CawMama]

Quirky....thanks for taking the time to clarify that.

[E.V. Lowi]

Originally Posted by Quirky

This law won't save a single child from choking, hanging, etc. The law concerns lead paint, lead content, and phlalates (plastic softeners). It will require all manufacturers and importers of any products for children under the age of 12 years old to submit every product to a third-party lab for lead content testing, at a cost of at least $300-$500 per item. It requires unit testing, not component testing. So for example, a toy maker who uses hardwood and lead-free non-toxic red paint to make toy apples, toy tomatoes, and toy radishes will need to test the apple, the tomato, and the radish to comply with the law.

German toy company Selecta, which has been making safe, non-toxic toys for years, has already announced it will pull out of the US market as of the end of this year because of the cost of complying with the law.

Thank you for providing factual information on the real costs of testing. Fear mongers on this issue have been spreading misinformation about these costs as being thousands more than is actually charged.

The phthalates issue has been on the horizon for at least 10 years. The city of San Francisco tried to ban them outright in 2006 but were sued by retailers and manufacturers. Why have manufacturers and retailers tried to stop the ban of phthalates which have been shown to be a clear danger, instead of complying?

Last year, when Mattel and RC2 Corp. had their product recalls due to lead paint, consumers were clamoring for protection from toxic products. Our legislators gave them what they asked for!

Mattel has also made safe products for years. Learning Curve was considered a specialty toy company and was sold through small mom and pop retail stores, and loved for their high quality toys, just like Selecta. How did lead end up in the toys of Learning Curve and why should Selecta get a pass on testing?

As far as small parts testing, I copied and pasted this directly out of the CPSC Age determinations guidelines--

QUOTE[ The five use and abuse tests specified in the regulation are impact, torque, tension, flexure, and
compression. The table below lists the criteria for each test, depending on the age child for whom
the toy is intended. Except for the tension test, each test method shall be applied to a previously
untested sample. The tension test shall be applied to the same sample used in the torque test.
Impact Flexure Torque Tension Compression
18 Months of Age
or Less
(16 CFR § 1500.51)
10 drops
from
4.5 ft ± 0.5 in
120° Arc
30 Cycles
10 lb ± 0.5 lb
2 lbf-in
± 0.2 lbf-in
10 lb
± 0.5 lb
20 lb
± 0.5 lb
Over 18 but Not Over
36 Months of Age
(16 CFR § 1500.52)
4 drops
from
3 ft ± 0.5 in
120° Arc
30 Cycles
15 lb ± 0.5 lb
3 lbf-in
± 0.2 lbf-in
15 lb
± 0.5 lb
25 lb
± 0.5 lb
Over 36 but Not Over
96 Months of Age
(16 CFR § 1500.53)
4 drops
from
3 ft ± 0.5 in
120° Arc
30 Cycles
15 lb ± 0.5 lb
4 lbf-in
± 0.2 lbf-in
15 lb
± 0.5 lb
30 lb
± 0.5 lb
Firms are not required to test their products under the Small Parts Regulation. However, the manufacturer, importer, or retailer is responsible for assuring that the toys they import, distribute, and sell comply with the Small Parts Regulation, and testing is a means of assuring compliance.] END QUOTE

These standards have been in effect for years. This revised version is from 2002. How many WAHM toy makers know about this or concern themselves with it in regards to the toys they make? Maybe this new law will be a wake up call to what the actual responsibilities are concerning product safety.

[Knittin' in the Shade]

Thank you for providing factual information on the real costs of testing. Fear mongers on this issue have been spreading misinformation about these costs as being thousands more than is actually charged.

I'm not ure what "fear mongers" you're referring to, but it's absolutely possible that the cost of testing can be in the thousands for one toy. Each component test costs between $300-500. If you've got a toy, say a train, that has three different kinds of wood (say, pine, walnut and cherry) and then is painted with 4 different paint colors you've got well over $2000 (at the leaast) on that ONE toy. Each piece of wood needs to be tested, that's $900-1500, and then each color of paint has to be tested, that's $1200-2000. So the total for testing that one particular train style is $2100-3500. If you've got 6 different style trains, that's potentially over $10K that you're looking at.

And the supplier's tests (say, for example, that the wood is tested by the company you buy it from) can't be used by the toy maker. So, it has to be tested again, and hte toymaker's cost.

E.V Lowi - I'm curious - do you plan to spend the money to get your waldorf dolls tested? Between the stuffing, thread, fabric for body, various fabrics for clothing, yarn for hair and other assorted supplies, I'm sure you're looking at well over $2K per doll style - multiply that by every hair color, skin color, and clothing fabric you offer for your dolls and that's a heck of a lot of $. And don't forget that every batch of supplies needs to be tested - so every time you buy a new bolt of fabric for doll heads, you'll have to send some of that off. Got a new bale of wool batting? That'll need to be tested, too.

[gardenmom]

Originally Posted by Knittin' in the Shade

E.V Lowi - I'm curious - do you plan to spend the money to get your waldorf dolls tested? Between the stuffing, thread, fabric for body, various fabrics for clothing, yarn for hair and other assorted supplies, I'm sure you're looking at well over $2K per doll style - multiply that by every hair color, skin color, and clothing fabric you offer for your dolls and that's a heck of a lot of $. And don't forget that every batch of supplies needs to be tested - so every time you buy a new bolt of fabric for doll heads, you'll have to send some of that off. Got a new bale of wool batting? That'll need to be tested, too.

Actually, after reading through a bit of it, I am almost positive that she's off the hook. Somewhere it said items entirely made of cloth (I recall it mentioned slings specifically, though that was only part of the passage I read) were exempt. I will see if I can find that part again.

I agree with you about the testing costs, which will be outrageous. Furthermore, I don't really understand how this will ever be enforced. Once a manufacturer tests an item completely, what's to stop them from sourcing it to a different factory, or to stop the factory who is making the toy from switching plastics or paints, particularly if it's made outside the US with little or no oversight?

[Knittin' in the Shade]

Originally Posted by gardenmom

Actually, after reading through a bit of it, I am almost positive that she's off the hook. Somewhere it said items entirely made of cloth (I recall it mentioned slings specifically, though that was only part of the passage I read) were exempt. I will see if I can find that part again.

It's in section 104 of the law, relating to durable nursery goods. Essentially, it says that items made of cloth for the nursery aren't included (except for baby carriers) but there's still no clarification if toys (such as dolls) are categorized as nursery goods. The law specifies things like towels, etc, I believe.

[Quirky]

Originally Posted by Knittin' in the Shade

It's in section 104 of the law, relating to durable nursery goods. Essentially, it says that items made of cloth for the nursery aren't included (except for baby carriers) but there's still no clarification if toys (such as dolls) are categorized as nursery goods. The law specifies things like towels, etc, I believe.

section 104 doesn't apply to section 102, the lead testing part -- so there's no relief there for makers of waldorf dolls, etc.

there is some rumor floating around that the cpsc intends to allow cloth to be exempt from the lead testing application. but that's not in effect yet and i would highly recommend that e.v. lowi and others lobby their congressional representatives to get that exemption into effect. otherwise, as stated, e.v. lowi and others making similar products are indeed responsible for lead testing every single different product that's made. no matter how small-scale they are.