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.

Metric pattern cutting for children's wear and babywear - 4th Edition

Winifred Aldrich has released an updated edition of her pattern making book. Besides having a much nicer cover design, it reportedly contains a revised organization and emphasis on flat pattern making. I find this change interesting because more and more design entrepreneurs are utilizing flat pattern making today and this confirms my personal experiences in the industry.

From the abstract at Amazon:

Today’s popularity of easy-fitting styles and knitted fabrics means that basic ‘flat’ pattern cutting is used to construct the majority of children’s wear and babywear and this type of cutting is therefore emphasized in this new edition. Shaped blocks and garments, cut to fit the body form, are still included, and are placed in chapters covering some school uniform garments or more expensive fashion or formal clothes.

One primary difference between flat versus fitted pattern making is that the patterns have the same shape for the front and back pieces. For example, the armhole shaping is symmetrical. Creating patterns in this way results in a looser, more casual fit and it is appropriate for a lot of children's clothing. Even so, I see more of a modified flat method in actual use. Patterns are modified so that they aren't quite so boxy and more fitted. Yet, they retain some symmetry between front and back pieces.

Do professional pattern makers work with seams on or off the pattern?

Professional apparel pattern makers work with seam allowances on their patterns nearly all the time. It's faster. I would argue it's more precise. This practice goes counter to what most pattern making classes teach. They teach that you must remove the seam allowances and add them back later. I don't know anyone in the industry that works this way. I think the idea is that working with seam allowances one can create variations that lead to fitting problems later. That's simply not true if you check your new pattern against the original block later. (This is assuming you make a copy or rubbing of your original before you start on a new style. But I'm sure you knew that).

If you are drafting by hand, it is time consuming to remove the seam allowances. Pattern blocks are made with seam allowances on. You would have to keep a set of blocks without seam allowances. It would be so easy to mix up seamed and unseamed pattern blocks. Apparel pattern makers leave their blocks seamed and theatre pattern makers or cutters leave their blocks (or rather slopers) unseamed. In fact a block is a finished pattern piece that includes all pattern markings and is seamed.

If you are drafting in CAD, you can turn the seam allowances on and off. You can work on the cutting line or the stitching line. It's a simple matter of hitting a few buttons. BUT, I have found that CAD programs have difficulty in calculating between seamed and unseamed because it involves a complex series of mathematics. So constantly switching between cutting and stitching lines can produce some weird anomalies. (As an aside, weird things can happen with notches on stitching versus cutting lines too). I have found this is true no matter which CAD system you use. So I work with seam allowances on and directly on the cutting line nearly 99% of the time. This means that I keep the seam allowances in mind while I work.

One Exception

In CAD, it is important to turn the seam allowances off and walk the pattern pieces along the stitching line in a few areas. Collars and necklines is one area that I nearly always check for matching on the stitching line. There are other situations that come up where this important. I learned this the hard way recently.

In this situation, I split a jacket back pattern piece and added corresponding seam allowances along the split line.

Next, I aligned the pattern pieces to make sure they match. At this point they did and I assumed all was right. Until I got complaints from the sewing machine operators that things weren't matching up. I had to go back and double check.

I took the seam allowances off the pattern pieces and realigned them. They didn't match, so I redrew the stitching line of the side piece to make sure it matched the center. I added back the seam allowances and realigned the edges.

 

The pieces didn't match again. Sewing machine operators also do not like this because they do not know how to align the pieces. In this particular case, the seam allowances are small, so I left the little "dog-ear". It can be difficult to cut those "dog-ears" off by hand when they are really small. It is easier to machine cut. In any event, there are different ways of dealing with this. I show one method below.

Your pattern pieces will then look like this and match up in every way possible.