Archive for July, 2009

WeMakeItSafer is Prepared for New Tracking Label Laws

Monday, July 27th, 2009

Quickly identify recalled products you may own with WeMakeItSafer's recalled product search tool.

By the end of August, consumers should start to see some changes on the children’s products they buy.   Products intended for children aged twelve and under that are manufactured on or after August 14, 2009 will be required to include permanent markings on both the packaging and the item itself.  The markings will include information that allows consumers to identify who the manufacturer or private labeler is as well as when and where the product was made.

The labels, mandated by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) passed last August 2008, are designed to make identification of recalled products easier.  While initially presenting a challenge to manufacturers who must create new systems for marking products and tracking label data, lower costs may be realized in the event of a product recall. 

The thought is that the labels will 1) help manufacturers narrow down the scope of a recall to a specific, affected batch of products, 2) help retailers to more easily locate and remove items from store shelves and 3) help consumers to quickly know whether or not their version of a product is included in the recall.

WeMakeItSafer is prepared for the new law and has already added a Search by Tracking Label option to its product Recall Search tool and Inventory Checker systems.  As children’s products manufactured on or after August 14th begin to make their way to store shelves, this tracking information, including the name of the manufacturer, should be all the information you need to know whether the product has been recalled.

A Summary of Requirements and Exceptions for Tracking Labels, CPSIA Section 103a

Saturday, July 25th, 2009

Commissioner Nord had previously voted to stay product labeling requirements until the CPSC could determine specific rules for labels, while Commissioner Moore voted to keep the August 14th deadline, stating that specifications from the CPSC were not necessary. 

Earlier this week, the CPSC published policy guidance that sides with Moore.  Permanent tracking labels will be required on all products primarily intended for children aged 12 and under, as well as the products’ packaging, beginning August 14, 2009.

Here is a summary of the requirements and exceptions as the law is interpreted by the CPSC:

1)    The domestic manufacturer or importer is responsible for labels.

2)    “Permanent labels” are any distinguishing mark remaining intact throughout the useful life of product (or packaging).

3)    Each manufacturer is to determine the type of marking best suited for their product and packaging.

4)    Consumer must be able to identify:
        a.    Manufacturer or Private Labeler
        b.    Location (City, State, Country) of manufacture1
        c.    Date product was assembled or packaged
        d.    Cohort information (eg. batch and run number), if applicable

5)    Manufacturer must also be able to determine the exact source of product and components
    
6)    Information need not be together in one location or marking.

7)    Manufacturer can employ a code or number for their markings if consumers can use it access the required information (e.g. online).

8)    Exceptions to labels on packaging include:

        a.    If label on product can be seen through packaging.

9)    Exceptions to labels on products include:

        a.    Products too small to be marked.
        b.    Products sold with multiple pieces (only one piece needs to be marked).
        c.    If product includes storage container for multiple pieces, container and one piece must be marked.
        d.    Items sold through vending machines.
        e.    Marking weakens or damages product.
        f.    Surface impossible to mark.
        g.    Aesthetics of product would be ruined by marks.
        h.    For socks and hosiery, follow Care Label rules.

10)    Penalties for non-compliant companies will be assessed based on a company’s “good-faith effort” to comply, as determined by company records and comparison with the company’s peers.

1 The CPSC specified that, in case of multiple parts being manufactured on multiple dates, the date of production can identified as a range or as the date of assembly or package.  They did not, however, specify the definition of "location of production" when multiple parts are produced in different locations.

http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/sect103policy.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/103faq.html

Does the CPSC Intend to Enforce the CPSIA Lead Limits on Children’s Products or Not?

Saturday, July 18th, 2009

071709 Confused Those who read this blog regularly, know that I generally post the facts with little added commentary.  However, a few of the Commissioners’ statements with regard to their votes on whether to exclude crystal and glass beads from lead limits left me quite confused over the stand the CPSC is taking, and will take, with regard to enforcing the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA of 2008) under its new leadership.

At the end of her explanation for denying the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association (FJTA) exemption request, Tenenbaum states:

“There is a wide range of children’s products that contain crystal and glass beads that are subject to the 101(a) lead limits and, as the Commission staff recognized, many of these products do not present an immediate danger of harmful lead exposure to children.  Consequently, we will focus our enforcement activities on crystal and glass bead products designed and intended primarily for children six years of age and younger, the population most at risk of mouthing and swallowing small objects.”

What, exactly, is she saying – although you will still be breaking the law if you make or sell products that have crystal or glass, lead-containing beads for children aged seven to twelve, we will look the other way?

She goes on to state, “While this approach does not provide the exact relief that the FJTA seeks through this request, I urge manufactures and retailers of crystal and glass beads to remember that, especially during the implementation period of the CPSIA, the agency’s primary enforcement focus will remain on noncomplying lead products that present serious health risks to children.”

Huh?  So there is some relief being provided.  Again, is that because the CPSC will not enforce the law, or because they will grant an exclusion for these products if they are intended for children aged seven to twelve?  Although the latter could make sense given that, under normal use and abuse, older children are less likely to put the beads in their mouth, the statements left me confused – if  I make or sell children's products, can I or cannot I use crystal and glass beads that contain lead above the legal limits in items intended for children under 12?

Moore’s statement may be even more confusing.  “I am voting today to direct our enforcement staff to focus their activities on these products [intended for children six and under].”

Um, was that up for a vote?  Clearly, I’m missing something.  I understand the CPSC has and always has had limited resources, forcing it to focus its attention on the most pressing dangers, but to me, these statements send a very mixed message.  Will the rules change when the CPSC does have the funds to enforce the law?

Whether or not I agree with Nord’s vote to stay the lead limit restrictions for crystal and glass jewelry, she makes a statement that is more in line with my understanding of the law:

“The CPSIA does not recognize that risks impact children of different ages in different ways and instead takes a “one size fits all” approach.  This is unfortunate, yet this is reality.”

In other words, the CPSC does not have the power to split the CPSIA in half, applying it to only some the children for which the laws were written, regardless of whether it would be "common sense" to do so.  Again,what are we to make of these statements on enforcement?  Is this not like saying, “The speed limit is 60 mph, but don’t worry, we don’t have enough police officers to enforce it.”

I am officially joining the ranks of the bewildered on this one.

Lead in Beaded Jewelry for Children: The CPSC Votes are In

Saturday, July 18th, 2009

The Fashion Jewelry Trade Association (FJTA) asked the Consumer Product Safety Commission for an exclusion on lead limits for glass and crystal beads used in children’s jewelry and other products.  The vote came in late today:

1.    Tenenbaum:     Denied
2.    Moore:             Denied
3.    Nord:               Stay of Enforcement

Although the glass and crystal breads tested at levels 900 ppm to 23,000 ppm, much higher than the current limit of 600 ppm, the FJTA argues that the amount of lead that could leach from and be absorbed into the body of a child who mouthed or swallowed a bead would be too small to be hazardous.  The FJTA further says that the amount of lead exposure would be below that of any metal jewelry that is in compliance with the 300 ppm limitation, which goes into effect in August of this year.

Tenenbaum and Moore based their decisions on one main fact – the law is written such that exemptions can be granted only in the case that no lead would be absorbed into the body under foreseeable use and abuse, not simply that the amount of lead absorbed is too small to be hazardous.  Tenenbaum adds that, given the wide variability in lead content of the glass and crystal beads, it is not accurate to say that in every case the beads would present less lead-risk than compliant, metal jewelry.

Nord agrees with Tenenbaum and Moore’s conclusion that an exclusion cannot be granted.  However, she states that it is one of the “unintended consequences of the CPSIA” and, because of the impact on small businesses and consumers who want to purchase the products, the only choice is to impose a stay of enforcement until Congress can review the issue.   Although, as Nord points out, Congress has said they would consider adjustments to the CPSIA, there is not any indication that this particular issue would be on their list of considerations at all, let alone any time soon.  Nord does not suggest a length of time for the stay she proposes.

Here are links to statements by Tenenbaum, Moore and Nord.

WeMakeItSafer Featured by Kids In Danger (KID)

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

WeMakeItSafer was recently featured in a Kids In Danger (KID) blog post.  KID was formed by parents of Danny Keysar, a 16-month-old boy who died in a recalled travel yard.  Neither parents nor caregivers at the childcare center where the crib was located knew about the recall.  To date, 16 babies have died, yet the travel yards remain in circulation.

Please visit http://WeMakeItSafer.com, pick the product categories relevant to you and skim through the images to make sure you don’t own anything that has been recalled.  Please urge your friends and family to do the same.  Together, We can make the world a safer place!