CPSC Revised Phthalates Test Method: Test Component Parts
The CPSC has issued a new testing policy for determining CPSIA phthalate compliance. It is, in my opinion, a more common sense approach than the previous testing policy. As we all know, section 108 of the CPSIA prohibits the sale of children’s toys and child care articles containing more than 0.1% of certain phthalates. In previous guidance issued by the CPSC, the agency had taken the position that this prohibition applied to the entire toy or child care article, and not to its individual components, and that the article be tested accordingly, as a whole. This meant testing materials that would never contain phthalates and, more concerning, allowed for the sale of toys that included components with high phthalate content, provided the whole toy did not exceed the 0.1% limit. For example, a plush animal could have a phthalate-laden squeezable nose, a component that a young child would certainly mouth, yet phthalate content of the entire product could be below the CPSIA limit as none of the other materials contained phthalates. The product would have been acceptable under the previous phthalate testing guidance.
With the new testing policy, however, this product would no longer be acceptable. CPSC is now interpreting the phthalates prohibition to mean that the sale of children’s toys and child care articles containing more than 0.1 % of the specified phthalates in each individual plasticized component part is prohibited. The impact of this new interpretation is two-fold: First, the concentration of phthalates would be calculated solely on the basis of the weight (mass) of the plasticized component part, rather than the entire article. Second, materials that are not plasticized would not require testing, although they still would be required to meet the 0.1 % limit on the specified phthalates.
To help companies determine how to test a product for phthalate compliance, the CPSC has provided two lists. One is a list of materials that may contain phthalates and would require testing, and the other is a list of materials that do not normally contain phthalates and would therefore not require testing (although compliance to the phthalate ban is always required).
Examples of materials that may contain phthalates and would require testing are:
· Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and related polymers, such as polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC) and polyvinyl acetate (PVA);
· Soft or flexible plastics, except polyolefins;
· Soft or flexible rubber, except silicone rubber and natural latex;
· Foam rubber or foam plastic, such as polyurethane (PU);
· Surface coatings, non-slip coatings, finishes, decals, and printed designs;
· Elastic materials on apparel, such as sleepwear;
· Adhesives and sealants; and
· Electrical insulation.
Examples of materials that do not normally contain phthalates and, therefore, might not require testing or certification are:
· Unfinished metal;
· Natural wood, except for coatings and adhesives added to wood;
· Textiles made from natural fibers, such as cotton or wool, except for printed decorations, waterproof coatings or other surface treatments, back coatings, and elastic materials (especially sleepwear);
· Textiles made from common synthetic fibers, such as polyester, acrylic, and nylon, except for printed decorations, waterproof coatings or other surface treatments, and elastic materials—however, any textiles containing PVC or related polymers must be tested;
· Polyethylene and polypropylene (polyolefins);
· Silicone rubber and natural latex; and
· Mineral products such as play sand, glass, and crystal.
These lists are not all-inclusive, and there are still some questions regarding material testing. For example, do all surface coatings require phthalate testing, or just those that are applied to materials that require flexibility? But the new phthalate testing policy simplifies the testing process, eliminates the unnecessary testing of products that do not contain phthalates, can reduce the cost of testing, and better harmonizes the CPSIA phthalates regulations with those enforced by the European Commission and by the State of California. It is an example of the common sense approach that the CPSC seems to be taking, and I’m looking forward to further such guidances and interpretations as the industry continues to implement the requirements of the CPSIA.
Johnathan commented:
Linda, that link states that CPSIA has waeivd enforcement for post-1985 books. How does it prove anything about the sale of pre-1985 books?In fact, Snopes does not even address the issue of the 1985 cut-off for children's books. Snopes is correct on the very fine issue of whether resellers have to test their products. In fact, resellers do not have to test unless they have no other way of knowing which of their products are legal. On the question of who is likely to go out of business, well I'm not so sure that Snopes' area of expertise is in retail marketing.Please see the following:February 9, 2009"[Resellers] are not required to test. However, retailers and resellers (including those who sell on auction Web sites) cannot knowingly sell children’s products that do not meet the requirements of the law.... As a practical matter, you must either: test the product; refuse to accept or sell the product, which will mean disposing of it if you already have it in your inventory; use your best judgment based on your knowledge of the product; or, contact the manufacturer...."From the same source, Table C: Commonly Resold Children’s Products and Materials"Books – 'ordinary' children’s titles e.g. paperbacks and hardbacks...OK to sell, if printed after 1985"February 6, 2009"Manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers should also be aware that CPSC will not impose penalties against anyone for making, importing, distributing, or selling...an ordinary children’s book printed after 1985."January 8, 2009"The new safety law does not require resellers to test children’s products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. However, resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties."I own a used bookstore and have consulted three lawyers. Here's what they told me--#1--If you continue to sell any used children's books you are at risk of prosecution.#2--You need to rearrange your whole business--signage, policies, inventory layout, and children's activities--so that it is perfectly clear that you are not marketing any pre-1985 children's books as appropriate for children.(This would make it difficulty to actually sell the books successfully, which is pretty much the whole point of owning a bookstore.)#3--We don't think you should change your business, because we hope and expect that this law will be changed this year, well before any bookstores are targeted for prosecution.As to the last, that's my hope, but it will only be changed if we demand that. The commerce committees in both the House and Senate are currently very resistant to permitting the hearings that we need in order to bring about necessary changes to a very bad law.I have more information at BookroomBlog.com
Izhar commented:
“Those resellers that do sell ptcruods in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties,” a reasonable interpretation of that statement as it applies to the sale of used goods would be that the agency will focus its attentions on those retailers who blatantly take a cavalier attitude towards the used children’s’ items in their inventory by continuing to vend merchandise items they have good reason to suspect contain lead."Huh? Where in the CPSC language is the hint that the CPSC is only going after those who are "cavalier" in their attitudes? It reads more like a threat to me.You should also know that one of the two commissioners at CPSC, Thomas Moore, specifically advised librarians and booksellers to "sequester" or discard books published before 1985 until/unless they are individually tested or there is scientific evidence that they are safe -- I would think that continuing to sell them after this "bright line" advice (as Moore put it) might be seen as having a "cavalier attitude." Do you want to take the chance on a $100,000 fine and five years in prison for each vintage book you sell? I wouldn't.
Luan commented:
Linda, that link states that CPSIA has waevid enforcement for post-1985 books. How does it prove anything about the sale of pre-1985 books?In fact, Snopes does not even address the issue of the 1985 cut-off for children's books. Snopes is correct on the very fine issue of whether resellers have to test their products. In fact, resellers do not have to test unless they have no other way of knowing which of their products are legal. On the question of who is likely to go out of business, well I'm not so sure that Snopes' area of expertise is in retail marketing.Please see the following:February 9, 2009"[Resellers] are not required to test. However, retailers and resellers (including those who sell on auction Web sites) cannot knowingly sell children’s products that do not meet the requirements of the law.... As a practical matter, you must either: test the product; refuse to accept or sell the product, which will mean disposing of it if you already have it in your inventory; use your best judgment based on your knowledge of the product; or, contact the manufacturer...."From the same source, Table C: Commonly Resold Children’s Products and Materials"Books – 'ordinary' children’s titles e.g. paperbacks and hardbacks...OK to sell, if printed after 1985"February 6, 2009"Manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers should also be aware that CPSC will not impose penalties against anyone for making, importing, distributing, or selling...an ordinary children’s book printed after 1985."January 8, 2009"The new safety law does not require resellers to test children’s products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. However, resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties."I own a used bookstore and have consulted three lawyers. Here's what they told me--#1--If you continue to sell any used children's books you are at risk of prosecution.#2--You need to rearrange your whole business--signage, policies, inventory layout, and children's activities--so that it is perfectly clear that you are not marketing any pre-1985 children's books as appropriate for children.(This would make it difficulty to actually sell the books successfully, which is pretty much the whole point of owning a bookstore.)#3--We don't think you should change your business, because we hope and expect that this law will be changed this year, well before any bookstores are targeted for prosecution.As to the last, that's my hope, but it will only be changed if we demand that. The commerce committees in both the House and Senate are currently very resistant to permitting the hearings that we need in order to bring about necessary changes to a very bad law.I have more information at BookroomBlog.com
Violin commented:
