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.

Stuffed Toy Floor Bag

My kids stuff toy collection is getting out of control, mostly due to grandparents but we are just as guilty. And since they are young, I have all their toys in the family room so I can watch them from the kitchen and the pile was becoming unsightly, overflowing their corner. One evening while on Pinterest, I came across an idea to use a bean bag as storage for soft toys. I also found a company that makes a bag but charges more than I wanted to spend. I mean it is just a giant bag.

My version is a giant floor bag, large enough for 2-3 little ones to sit on.

The girls love it.

Diameter of top and bottom circle pieces is 36". Side panel (in grey) measures 15"x 120".

Fabric is a double sided fur fleece.

I cut a 24" diameter inner circle in the top to create a mesh fabric window and zipper opening. The mesh fabric is an old laundry bag but you can buy mesh fabric like this from Seattle Fabrics. I used the small inner circle as a pattern for the mesh window adding 1" more for seam allowance. 

A 1/2" binding strip of sheer tricot was applied to the cut edge of the mesh so one side of the zipper could be sewn on to it. The fur fleece was overlapped to finish the other side of the zipper.

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.