A question on the drawstring rule and children's clothing

I received a question about drawstrings* and elastic waists.

I want to design skirts with elastic waists and a ties that are sewn in by the hem, which then connect to a bow. Is this not acceptable to the Drawstring rule CPSIA? So confused on this. If isn't acceptable, can I do a skirt with elastic waists and sew a bow in the middle?

In the United States there is a safety rule about drawstrings on children's upper outerwear.** This rule does not allow drawstrings in hoods or waists of jackets or hoodies, for example. A drawstring is a cord with or without a toggle that is inserted in a channel. The intent of a drawstring is to cinch up a waist or hood opening to make it smaller. This rule was enacted because children have died when the toggle or knot on the drawstring became entangled on playground equipment and bus doors. It appears the CPSC has added a bit of clarity to the original rule. You actually can have drawstrings so long as the drawstring does not extend more than three inches and has been securely stitched through in the middle of the channel so it cannot be pulled out.

This hoodie uses ribbing to help it fit closer around the head, instead of a drawstring.

But if I were you, I would avoid using drawstrings altogether in children's clothing. The reason is rather simple. There continue to be drawstring recalls even with almost no reports of injury or death. As of 2012, there have been more than 130 recalls involving drawstrings. The most recent is of a rain poncho. In this example it's clear there are no toggles or knots on the drawstring, the string is just too long (no reports of injury). The rule covers children 2T-16, but there have been recalls on infant clothing too. There was an odd recall of an elastic waist belt on a jacket (no injuries).

The recent rule revision appears to focus almost entirely on upper outerwear like jackets, sweaters, and hoodies. But historically there have been recalls on pants with drawstring waists. For this reason, I do not recommend drawstrings on any children's clothing. The risk is too great. Even though the majority of the recalls in the last 10 years have had no injuries or death, there have been a few. Also, the CPSC seems to inconsistently apply the rule, including the apparent exception of a three inch extension. There is just no way to predict what might happen.

To answer the first question above, I would try to avoid sewing things onto the ends of ties. That seems to fall into the drawstring with toggles or knots category. I think a bow sewn securely through on top of an elastic waist should be ok.

Waist ties and belts have not been involved in any product recalls, as far as I know, and are not included in this rule. Girls dresses, in particular, frequently have waist ties or belts. Even though the rule excludes this type of application, I would still exercise caution. Waist ties should only be long enough to tie with tails that are not too long. The tail of a belt or waist tie should not extend below the hem of a dress or touch the floor - it could become a trip hazard. Also, be sure there are no knots or toggles on the ends.

BTW, there is an ASTM standard for drawstrings, ASTM F1816. It costs $42 to buy a copy of this rule.

*I'm not a lawyer. The statements above are my opinion and should not be construed as legal advice on how to comply with government regulations. If you are manufacturing children's products, you should seek legal advice, follow all applicable rules, and seek out a certified testing laboratory as required.

**The CPSC has updated their website since I last visited and they have made it even more difficult to find safety rules with their "robot regulator". You have to jump through a questionnaire to find the safety rule you are looking for. This is the direct link to the drawstring rule, however long it remains a valid link.

New rules for soft infant and toddler carriers

Photo courtesy of Benutzer via Wikimedia

It's been a while since I've written about the Consumer Product and Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). While the goal of the law was worthy, the application continues to be problematic. It's clear that Congress passed a law with little understanding of what it was they were asking to be implemented. The result is that the fallout continues. The regulatory burden continues to increase, the cost of doing business continues to increase, and more businesses continue to leave the market with little to no improvement in overall safety.

Don't assume that I oppose safety rules. Quite the contrary. The child product industry has supported the implementation of safety rules and testing. But they want to do it by incorporating risk analysis, practicality, and good common sense. Instead we are being given regulations drafted by academics from the halls of Ivy League schools with no practical industry experience or understanding. (If you think I'm making this up, believe me I'm not. You can get a degree to learn how to create public policy).

In any event, a new regulation has now been published that establishes rules for soft infant and toddler carriers. Definitions are important in government legalese. This rule does NOT cover slings.

ASTM F2236-14's definition of a “soft infant and toddler carrier” distinguishes soft infant and toddler carriers from other types of infant carriers that are also worn by a caregiver but that are not covered under ASTM F-2236-14, specifically slings (including wraps), and framed backpack carriers. Soft infant and toddler carriers are designed to carry a child in an upright position. Slings are designed to carry a child in a reclined position. However, some slings may also be used to carry a child upright. Thus, the primary distinction between a sling and a soft infant and toddler carrier is that a sling allows for carrying a child in a reclined position. Different hazard patterns arise from carrying a child in a reclined position. Accordingly, slings are not covered by the standard for soft infant and toddler carriers. Like soft infant and toddler carriers, framed backpack carriers are intended to carry a child in an upright position. However, framed backpack carriers are distinguishable from soft infant and toddler carriers because typically, backpack carriers are constructed of sewn fabric over a rigid frame and are intended solely for carrying a child on the caregiver's back.

Just because this regulation does not cover slings, do not assume that regulations for slings are not forthcoming. The statement above, highlighted in yellow, states there are safety hazards and implies that standards will come.

You'll notice that ASTM F2236-14 becomes codified in law, which you must pay to access. Though a recent lawsuit* has changed this, I don't expect this standard to be made available in the public domain unless a similar lawsuit against ASTM forces it.

Some other observations:

1. The style of the this regulation is different from previous regulations that I've read. In other words, the regulatory statement includes context in the form of quotes from regulated parties along with a response from the CPSC.

2. This regulation primarily affects 32 of 39 possible businesses that manufacture this type of product.

3. The regulators apparently spent a lot of time debating the font size for text on warning labels.

4. The regulators referred to the ASTM standard as voluntary. It's really not.

5. Manufacturers of this product support the regulation.

6. This standard overlaps other standards including the third-party testing requirement found in CPSIA.

The take away from this regulation, despite being "new", is that very little changes. Most manufacturers were already complying with the ASTM standard. The difference now is that the standard becomes law with a few minor additions.

*The organization that won this lawsuit has been primarily focused on making building codes available in the public domain. Standards for children's products are not currently on their radar. Maybe someday it will be.

Warning: Tagless labels in baby clothes and the CPSIA

My sister sent me an update on the problem. It appears that the re-formulated paints may include latex tainted paint, similar to silk screen paint. My niece had another reaction even worse than previous because her entire back flared up red. The pediatrician suggested my niece now has a latex allergy and possible nickel allergy. Latex allergies can develop over time with multiple exposures.

Well over two years ago, Carter's and the CPSC issued an advisory to parents about tagless or heat transfer labels located in the back neck of their clothing. They had received reports that the labels were causing allergic reactions and irritation. The advisory stated that the reported incidents were rare and a small percentage of the thousands of units produced. The affected product was primarily the Fall 2007 line. This means the product was manufactured early 2007 or late 2006.

It is difficult to know what ingredient in the labels is causing the reaction. Some have suggested formaldehyde. Others suggest it is the pthalates, which exist at a far higher concentration than other products. It is puzzling that with documented problems that neither Carter's or the CPSC have done a more thorough investigation. Instead the CPSC is bogged down with debates over the amount of lead in the brass ball of an ink pen or whether a bicycle manufacture can use lead in a tire valve. Surely the CPSIA, that ultimate guardian of children's safety would not have allowed this kind of problem to persist. One has to wonder where the consumer protection groups are on this? Why aren't they making a big stink?

You would think that a product that proved to be a problem would have been resolved by now. No. Carter's released their Spring 2009 line with a reformulated ink and label style - two years later. Because there was no product recall there is an untold amount of product still floating around. (Even with a recall, there would still be a lot of product out there because recalls rarely recover 100% of sold merchandise).

You can accuse me of hysteria or panic if you choose. I'm most guilty of cynicism about federal regulations that don't seem to actually accomplish intended goals. But the reason I am writing this is because my youngest niece suffered a reaction to a tagless label. I was even more incensed when I saw this picture.

You see this label does not even belong to Carter's. It's an Arizona Jean Co. bodysuit, a private label product for JCPenny. The brown around the label is actually my niece's blood! You can see the rash on her back below.

My sister purchased the bodysuit in Fall of 2008 in anticipation of need later in 2009. It wasn't after her baby had worn the bodysuit a few times that she realized the source of the problem. My sister reported the problem to JCPenny and was told she would be refunded her money and receive new product. She was also advised to report the problem to the CPSC herself (which she is doing). Huh? Since I have worked on private label programs for JCPenny, I know how meticulous and thorough they are with safety. This is surprising to say the least.

This is all rather troubling. Doesn't the CPSC require companies to report safety problems immediately? Of course the CPSC may receive a report but how long will it take for them to react, especially now? This problem illustrates how upside down the whole system has become*. We focus all of our energy in silly debates about ink pens, ban rhinestones with no bio-available lead and spend all of our time recalling toys with minuscule amounts of lead - all with no reported injuries. Compare that with the many reports of injuries related to these labels, and we get, well, nothing.


Spring 2009 is two years after the initial reports. Why so long? Why not switch to traditional labeling in the interim? Carter's claims they went tagless to improve the comfort factor - no scratchy label. Well, a scratchy label can be cut out and the problem removed. A tagless label on a baby's bodysuit is not easily removed and must be thrown out. After all this, I think I prefer traditional labels.

*In fairness, the CPSC is working on a consumer database to report incidents as required by law. They are in the process of comment gathering and workshops. Problems can be reported now, but the information required by the CPSIA is not publicly available. If anything, the CPSC should look at a complete overhaul of their entire website which is a disorganized mess. But that is an argument for another day.

Wedding Dress Care-Content Labeling

This article now has a follow-up blog entry with some corrections and additional opinions. Your comments are welcome, but hateful or spammy comments will be deleted.

As I was working on the alterations for this wedding dress, I wanted to see other dresses by this designer/maker. Perhaps the sleeve pattern shaping was intentional and not a mistake? Perhaps the problem is consistently found in other styles? I had no idea who the designer was, only where the dress was purchased. The dress was not in the store's web catalog and the only label in the dress was not helpful. The dress was missing a brand label and had no RN number. Further, the care instructions were rather bizarre/interesting (click on the picture for a closer view). I googled the style number and came up empty.

At a minimum, the dress should have had an RN number on the label. You can search an FTC database to find out the manufacturer of an apparel item. Wedding dress manufacturers/bridal shops have been fined in the past for failing to disclose or intentionally removing this information. Alterationists may remove the labels after purchase but should give them to the bride (links to come later as the FTC website was having problems when I wrote this).

The label states:

100% polyester
Do not dryclean
Spot clean ONLY
Use cold water and
mild soap
Made in China
See reverse for care
----------------------
Do not spray Alcohol
based product directly
on gown such as Perfume,
Hairspray....etc. This will
damage beadworks and
embroiderie designs made of
Rayon, Nylon, and other
synthetic materials.

I found the care instructions rather hilarious. How many of you spot cleaned your wedding dress with only cold water and mild soap? The fabrics themselves probably could be dry cleaned or even hand washed (though that may be more work). The beads will probably dissolve in the dry cleaning solvents, so thus the "do not dry clean" instructions. But, if you can find a reputable dry cleaner who will clean the dress and avoid the beads, then go ahead and have the dress dry cleaned. Otherwise, hand wash the dress. BTW, there were no further care instructions on the back of the label. Many wedding dresses are currently manufactured in China, which may explain the poorly written tag.

The extra instructions are interesting. I suppose it is possible that perfume or hairspray may damage the beads. Though the bride would probably need to be drenched in it before the beads dissolved. Sure would like to put those beads to the test....

The label should have been written to say:

100% Polyester
Hand wash or
Spot clean
in cold water with
mild soap. Hang to
dry. Do not bleach,
Do not iron.
Made in China
RN12345 ( ------ Made up)
---------------------
Avoid the use of
Alcohol based products
such as hairspray,
perfume, etc., as these
may damage the dress.

And of course, the care instructions should be thoroughly tested by the manufacturer. Good industry practice (and the government) dictate that a manufacturer should have a reasonable basis for the cleaning instructions. This means actual test data recorded and stored with the manufacturer. At this point in time, manufacturers (except children's clothing manufacturers) can do their own in-house wash testing. Children's clothing manufacturers will have to have it done by a certified laboratory. Wash testing is not specifically mentioned in the CPSIA, but it does imply that ANY testing will have to be done in a certified lab.

The problem with Exemptions and the CPSIA

I think I have been a part of a very minor group of protesters who want a repeal of the CPSIA 2008. The idea has generally been quashed because it doesn't give the appearance "of playing along" or "of being cooperative". See, everyone wants the safest products for children so they are willing to play along with stricter regulations. Perhaps some new safety rules are needed, but the CPSIA is a bureaucratic, chaotic mess.

A repeal may be near impossible to get. It would require vote hungry lawmakers to admit they made a mistake. Who wants to admit they didn't read the darn thing before voting on it? We know most of them didn't because they by and large act with shock when their constituents tell them the truth. What lawmakers want to face angry constituents who insist on stronger regulation to protect children? No, they all patted themselves on the back because they did something to protect a vulnerable population. It was feel good legislation built on a foundation of emotionalism and fear mongering.

So anyway, every industry touched by this wants an exemption. Bicycle makers can't make strong welds without lead. Clothing has little to no lead, which washes out). Book makers use soy ink, so few books would have lead. Electronic devices have internal lead which is inaccessible, micro cottages want permission because they do one-of-a-kind or sell to a very small customer base (small exposure). Resale shops could never test all of their random product. All of these are legitimate reason to exempt a particular industry. If the exemptions we need are granted, we will kind of be back where we started pre-CPSIA.

The CPSC has issued a couple of exemptions. Though the exemptions are largely lip service without any real meat behind them. For example the natural materials exemption. Natural materials such as wood and cotton are exempt as long as they are left in their natural state. Well such an exemption doesn't really help the textile industry because nearly all textiles are processed in some way. White cottons have been bleached and/or dyed white. Such actions mean that the exemption no longer applies. Have you seen unbleached and unprocessed cotton? It's not all that attractive. But if you can build a clothing company around unbleached cotton muslin with unfinished wood buttons, be my guest.

Let's face another fact. Lead is a natural element of our planet. So according to the exemption (if we were to take the extreme interpretation), we could sell unprocessed lead because it is a natural material. But that wouldn't make sense, now would it.

The next exemption on resale stores is another problem. Perhaps the CPSC was begining to feel the pressure. But if you read the actual press release, resale stores are not really off the hook. They can continue their business, but if they do happen to sell product that does not conform they still face criminal prosecution. Floating around twitter is this statement:

Thrift exempt is like telling your kid they don't need to brush teeth, but spanking them if they have bad breath!

Resale shops could still have the CPSC police show up at their door. (I guess we could trust the CPSC when they say they won't target thrift stores, but the language of the law and the exemption hasn't changed. IOW, the door is still open that they could inspect your business if and when they have enough money and CPSC police). All it would take is a guerilla group or investigative reporter to go into any shop with an XRF gun and turn you in. Really, there are regular retail shops dealing with this scenario now.

So Resale shops exercise their business at their own risk. And really, most retailers will be operating like this on February 10, 2009. The hammer won't necessarily fall on that day, but it will when a CPSC policeman or bureaucrat wants to look like they accomplished something.

We never needed this new legislation. I know it sounds unbelievable that Congress really didn't need to act. The CPSC already had sufficient power to enact new safety rules. They had this power when the agency was created in the 1970's to develop safety standards, issue recalls, and ban certain products. If new lead regulation was needed, the agency could have acted on its own. It had that power. The idea that it required an "act of congress" to create new regulations was false. Perhaps Congress could have passed something that said, "We are increasing the fines and we expect new regulations that address concerns with lead in toys to be enacted within the next year." Maybe Nancy Nord didn't want to stick her neck out and actually accomplish something other than lobbyist paid trips.

Anyway, the CPSC has passed various regulations over the years. Flammability and sleepwear, painted metal, drawstrings, and children's jewelry. They even repealed one (Tris in pajamas). All this happened without much intervention from Congress. Does this agency not have a backbone? Let's repeal this act and let's allow industry and science be involved in the crafting the few rules that are needed.