After agonizing over the draft for several days, today I'm sending off letters to Zoe Lofgren, Diane Feinstein, Bobby Rush, Ed Whitfield, Nancy Pelosi, the Small Business Ombudsman for the CPSC, and Mr. Barack Obama himself (why not?) -- will be interesting to see what sort of a reply, if any, I receive.
Here's what I wrote:
On February 10th, 2009, unless you can help, hundreds of thousands of small businesses like mine are going to be forced to close. I am the sole proprietor of a new small business. I am also the mother of two young children, and it is from both of these perspectives that I write to you to express my concerns about the new Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.
I am very much in favor of reasonable efforts to protect children from toxic products, but I cannot support the CPSIA as it now stands. As I understand it, this legislation in its current form is not good for consumers or for businesses, especially small businesses like mine. It is well intentioned, but the testing requirements will decrease consumer options for children’s goods, increase price significantly, and put me – and many other handcraft artists like myself – out of business.
In my little handcraft business, Mama’s Magic Studio, my primary product is Baby Friendly Beads breastfeeding jewelry. Each of my beaded jewelry designs is one of a kind, because I enjoy the creative process and because my customers like having unique creations. Additionally, when I opened my business this year, I planned eventually to branch out into making jewelry, dolls, and other items for children.
The CPSIA will have dramatic consequences for businesses like mine. My main concern is the requirement that all units of children's items be tested for lead content and phthalates. The problem, as I understand it, is that every “unit” created must be independently tested by the manufacturer, the artist making the item. It is not sufficient to rely on testing done by suppliers, and there are no exceptions or considerations made for smaller “micro” manufacturers like myself. For artists like me who make small runs or one of a kind items, the testing required by this legislation is simply not economically possible.
Neither should it be necessary. Almost all the handcraft artists I know use commercially available supplies to create their products or work with materials that are inherently nontoxic. Do beads suddenly contain lead because I have strung them together on cord? Does a baby blanket mysteriously turn toxic because I’ve knitted the yarn into a different shape? Of course not. If the materials were safe before I worked my “magic” on them, they should still be safe once my product has been finished. Why require an additional round of redundant testing on the finished item, at a cost of hundreds of dollars per item? All of my products cost less than $50 retail. Most of them are one of a kind. This is the case with many of the handcraft artists I know: moms trying to make a little extra grocery money, grandmas knitting for the church bazaar, proud-but-small businesses trying to make the world a little more beautiful while making a living. How on earth can we test our products as required by the CPSIA and remain profitable?
While my jewelry is not a toy, and is intended as costume jewelry to be worn by adults, I am very concerned that the new CPSIA regulations might apply to my product because it could be interpreted as something that is “used” by children under 12 (namely, babies grasping the jewelry while nursing, instead of pulling at mama’s hair). I have submitted a question to the CPSIA website asking for clarification on this, but I have not yet received a reply. Even if my product is found to be exempt, however, I cannot support the testing requirements as stated in the law. Because of these requirements, I have put on hold all plans to start making any children’s items, because it seems impossible for a small handcraft business like mine to comply with this law. Essentially, my business plan for future growth has been entirely undermined because of this legislation.
It has been challenging enough, as a new business owner, to deal with with the California Lead in Jewelry Law. Of course, being a mother myself, I absolutely understand the need for safe children’s items – and to date I have erred on the side of caution and considered breastfeeding jewelry to fall under the category of children’s items in terms of compliance with the law. I have made every effort to use only nontoxic materials that are lead-free and to take safety into account with my designs, even though my jewelry is technically costume jewelry for adults. So I sympathize with the CA law, the efforts to keep children safe, and I am doing my best to comply.
As I understand it, the CA law allows the manufacturer some wiggle room to use information from suppliers in order to be in compliance with the law. (From the online FAQ: “Although the law does not specifically require a person to conduct compliance testing, the only way to know for certain if an item is in compliance with the law is to have it analyzed by a laboratory using the methods specified in the law (EPA Methods 3050B or 3051). DTSC highly encourages businesses to obtain certificates of compliance and other detailed information about the composition of materials purchased from jewelry component suppliers. The law specifies various factors that will be considered when assessing penalties for violations including whether good faith measures were taken to comply with the law and the time these measures were taken.”
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LeadInJewelry.cfm.) This seems to be a reasonable approach. To me, it makes a lot more sense to require a supplier of materials to do testing and certify the safety of their materials, and I appreciate knowing exactly what I’m using in my jewelry. However, once this testing has been done by my supplier, I do not see a need for additional testing. I find it baffling that the CPSIA would not allow for a similar approach to the CA law, especially where small businesses and handcraft artists are concerned.
As a mother of two young children, I am well aware of the need to protect children from toxic substances. I also cherish the wide range of choices and the entrepreneurial spirit provided by the handmade community. I have befriended several handcraft artists in my shopping for my children, and it is such a joy to see my kids using and wearing items made with love by someone that I know. While well intentioned, the CPSIA goes about protecting children in the wrong way. The testing requirements place an unjust and unnecessary burden on small business and handcraft artists. I fear that the if the CPSIA goes into effect as written, the only ones who will be able to legally sell their stuff for kids are large businesses, places like Target and Walmart, places selling mass-produced goods from manufacturers that can afford the testing. And it’s likely that their costs will be passed on to consumers, so we will all be paying more for less. How sad that would be!
In a time of economic crisis, the last thing I want my government to do is make it more difficult for me (and small businesses like me) to survive. But that’s exactly what will happen once the CPSIA goes into effect. As you may be aware, more and more people are expressing concern about all this, and a movement is beginning. “National Bankruptcy Day” has been declared for February 10th and the regulations going into effect:
http://nationalbankruptcyday.com/.
I certainly don’t want to close my doors as of February 10th. However, given the way the Act is written, and the broadness of its scope, I fear that it may come to that. I know that it will come to that for many of my colleagues in the handmade community. Surely this is not what the CPSIA was intended to do.
Here are my specific suggestions for amending the legislation:
- Waive the testing requirements entirely for small volume manufacturers, those of us in the small handcraft businesses especially. The Handmade Toy Alliance has suggested businesses with revenue less than 1 million dollars in the USA should be exempt. Requiring this testing really will put us all out of business.
- If a waiver is not possible, the CPSC should provide free testing to small businesses that produce children’s products.
- If the CPSC does not have the means or inclination to offer free testing, the burden of testing should be borne by the manufacturers of materials used in handcraft businesses (fabrics, beads, paints, etc.). If their product could potentially be used to make something used by a child under the age of 12, the manufacturer of those materials should certify them as lead and phthalate free. The manufacturer should then make those certifications available to their customers. Shouldn’t these folks be making safe products anyway?
- Allow third party certifications from the supplier as sufficient proof of items being lead and phthalate free. If the beads in my necklaces have been tested and certified by the company from which I purchase them, I should be able to obtain those certifications and not have to re-test those same beads simply because I put them on a piece of string. Same goes for somebody making children’s textiles: if the fabric and thread are certified as safe, why must they be tested again simply because they’ve been rearranged?
In my experience, it has been very difficult to obtain any “certificates of compliance” from suppliers (as suggested by the CA law) most likely because of their own concerns about liability. So if the CPSIA were to take this approach, more would need to be done on a national basis to require suppliers of materials to provide those certificates to us so that we can be fully informed about the materials we use in our own products. In the case of handcraft artisans and small businesses like myself, it is our suppliers who have financial capital for these tests, access to the material in bulk (so that only a relatively small portion of the material needs to be tested; in comparison, with my small inventory, a very large percentage would be required for testing purposes, creating another financial hardship). It is simply unreasonable to put the burden of testing on small businesses like mine. Additionally, even if I had the money (which I certainly don't), how would I find a lab to do the testing, and will they have the capacity to meet my needs? It really puts a small business owner in a bind.
I am just one of hundreds of thousands of small businesspeople in the US who will be adversely affected by the testing provisions of the Act. I know that the Act was conceived as a well-intentioned effort to safeguard children against lead and other contaminants in toys, primarily from overseas. Unfortunately, the way it's written, the Act will simply drive American small manufacturers of children's goods out of business, thereby increasing our reliance on imported toys and goods. Is this really the best way to ensure our children’s safety? No. Is this a good idea in these times of economic crisis? Absolutely not. Unless it is changed to address the concerns I have outlined, the Act will not help and will certainly do harm in our economy – the last thing it needs at this time. Please help make sure that February 10th, 2009, does not become "National Bankruptcy Day" for myself and countless others like me.
I am not a lawyer, nor does my very small business budget include enough extra money to pay for legal counsel, so I have come to my understanding of these issues by doing my own research, reading the text of the law, and talking with other handcraft artists. Folks are in a panic about this. Perhaps I have misunderstood how this law will affect me and the hundreds of thousands of other business owners like me; if so, I would be delighted to know and I will certainly spread the word. I look forward to your timely reply so I can make educated decisions about whether or not I can comply with the new standards.
Without your help, my choice come February 10th will be to close up shop, continue business illegally, or radically change my business by ceasing production of any and all items for children or related to children’s needs. I sincerely hope you and your colleagues will work together so that folks like me don’t have to choose between closing shop and becoming a criminal.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Johnson
Owner, Mama’s Magic Studio
***
For information about what you can do to help get the CPSIA amended, and for more information about the act and what folks are saying about it, please see my earlier post here.
RSS Feed (xml)
S and I managed to leave two entire bags of toys from us to the kids here at home. Sigh. And neither of the kids were at their best, alas. Nice to see family, though; in addition to Nana and Nana's friends, she had invited her sister S and their family. So the kids got to meet Auntie S, Uncle J, and their cousins S and R.
Not that we have that many ornaments to showcase, this year. We left off 99% of the fragile ones, and the ones we did use aren't exactly artfully arranged, since the kids did most of the decorating. BB hung these white pinecones, and as you can see, she takes the same approach to hanging ornaments that she does to applying stickers: the more the better, especially if they are the same sort and right on top of each other.
Everyone was smiling when we were through, including BB (in spite of her teething; she's cutting the first of her 2 year molars, and she constantly has her fingers in her mouth!) I wish we'd been able to arrange things to put the tree in the living room, where we could all enjoy it more, but there just wasn't room. Ah well, maybe next year.
