New Lead Laws Affect Children’s Jewelry

[Russ Nobbs]

Here are a few more links about the CPSC lead testing issue.

A statement from Etsy that includes a video about a very small wood toy producer: <a href="http://snipurl.com/a6zub" target="_blank">http://snipurl.com/a6zub[/url]

Another petition type site: www.change.org (Save handmade toys from the CPSIA)

The CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese interview video lashed out against "Mommy Bloggers." Here is a work at home Mom site with some pithy comments and good links: <a href="http://www.momdot.com/cpsia-insults-mommy-bloggers/" target="_blank">http://www.momdot.com/cpsia-insults-mommy-bloggers/[/url]

A class action lawsuit is proposed to reform the CPSIA and remove the regulations that will close or prohibit many small craft businesses who sell children's goods: <a href="http://reformcpsia.org/" target="_blank">http://reformcpsia.org/[/url]
This class action lawsuit can be joined by tiny, small and medium sized businesses by contacting The Kushner Law Firm at <a href="http://www.kushnerlawfirm.com/" target="_blank">http://www.kushnerlawfirm.com/[/url]

This is not going away, folks. The CPSC may only have a small staff to enforce the new rules but, unless we have the combined strength to change the direction of this, a lot of small craft, toy, clothing and jewelry manufactures will be "saved" right out of business.

[Russ Nobbs]

<font color='#000000'>I was reading over some of the links I posted earlier.
<a href="http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/Home/our-proposal-to-modify-the-cpsia" target="_blank">http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/Home....e-cpsia[/url] led me to the very well thought and very detailed petition to change the new rules. NAM is an umbrella group of larger businesses but the petition encourages realistic changes to the new law.

See the National association of Manufacturers Petition at <a href="http://snipurl.com/abvur" target="_blank">http://snipurl.com/abvur[/url]

The excellent fact filled NAM petition does not work from the above link for all connections. You can reach it from the Hand Made Toy Alliance page above.</font>

[bmaupin]

**This is a repost from a cached version of the forum**

Russ Nobbs
Reply #17 on: February 03, 2009, 10:01:47 PM:

BREAKING NEWS
Yesterday, Feb 2, 2009 the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a one year stay for the new regulations. The stay does NOT exempt "metal components of children's metal jewelry (effective for products manufactured after March 23, 2009)"
The text of the stay is at http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr09/stayenforce.pdf
The CPSC website is http://www.cpsc.gov

I'm sure the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Â the Manufacturing Jewelers and Silversmiths of America (MJSA) and the other national organizations pressure along with comments from many of us influenced this stay.

Rings & Things received an announcement from MSJA saying (in part) Jewelery manufacturers will see no relief from the one-year stay recently issued for certain testing and certification requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which regulates the lead content in products (including jewelry) for children age 12 and younger.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted for the stay last week, after Congress was deluged with complaints from the broad range of industries affected by the law, including toys, apparel, and furniture. However, an exception to the stay was made for certain products, including children's jewelry.

As a result, third-party testing and certification will still be required for children's jewelry products made after March 23, 2009. Those items must contain no more than 600 ppm (0.06 percent) lead content by weight. That threshold will drop to 300 ppm (0.03 percent) in August. The CPSC has until November to establish compliance protocols and testing for random samplings.

The CPSIA has drawn wide-ranging criticism for its ambiguous testing and compliance requirements, its overly broad scope, and its requirements imposing costly procedures that provide little or no safety benefit to children. MJSA members should ask their senators and representatives to provide more meaningful legislative relief that resolves the ambiguous requirements in the current law, or to encourage the CPSC to provide more direct action to resolve these questions. To obtain your legislators' contact information, go to senate.gov or house.gov and type in your ZIP code.

MJSA continues to push for the CPSC's proposed rule to exempt precious stones and precious metals from third-party testing. MJSA has petitioned the CPSC to approve the exemption, which covers materials that "by their nature," contain little or no lead or risk of exposure; they include gold (at least 10 karat), sterling silver (at least 925/1000), platinum, palladium, rhodium, surgical steel, precious gems, most semi-precious gems, and natural and cultured pearls. The CPSC will not act until the public comment period ends on February 17.

[bmaupin]

**This is a repost from a cached version of the forum**

Russ Nobbs
Reply #18 on: February 09, 2009, 11:17:33 PM:

<font color='#000000'>This is a moving target. The CPSC stay was overturned by a court judge. So the new law is now in effect. However, the CPSC staff has made some determinations that eliminate some materials from testing requirements because they do not contain lead in any hazardous level by their very nature.

On February 5, 2009, a district court judge overturned the US Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC's) last-minute stay on lead testing for children's products, meaning the enactment date for the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) has returned to it's original date of February 10, 2009.

In Rings & Things' February, 2009, newsletter, we reported that the federal Act was to take effect February 10, 2009, but as our article was being distributed, we discovered that the CPSC had announced a one-year stay for most federal lead regulations and a 41-day stay (till March 23, 2009) for testing children's metal jewelry. So, we posted a late-breaking update in our online article.

However, on February 9, we discovered that the stays were overturned by a district court judge and the law was back to it's original enforcement date—only one day away!

In terms of jewelry, the law only affects makers of children's jewelry, and defines children as 12 years of age or younger (the law does not apply to adult jewelry).

The shorthand version of the new law is this: Starting on February 10, 2009, manufacturers and sellers of children's jewelry (including crafters) will need to have an accredited laboratory test their jewelry and certify that it's within allowable lead limits. The first stage of the law allows an upper limit of 600PPM (parts per million) of lead. In August, 2009, the allowable amount of lead will drop to 300PPM, and in August 2011 it will drop again to 100PPM if the US government "determines this level to be feasible."

The testing process is looking expensive – and potentially cost prohibitive for small businesses – which has caused a lot of stir. The CSPC seems to have geared their legislation for testing factory-made finished jewelry being imported into the United States from large businesses overseas. They've failed to take into account thousands of US artisans and crafters who 1) don't have the same overhead as large factories and 2) might be using components that have already been tested, either by the parts manufacturer or by the distributor. Even more unfortunate is that the CPSC's initial assessment about the impacts of testing requirements on small businesses concludes that "the proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities."

One good thing to come out of the recent turmoil is that the CPSC is now providing more specific information about what materials can be used in children's jewelry without being tested. They say this list is "preliminary," which suggests it can change. But, for now, the Commission "preliminarily determines that the following natural materials do not exceed the 600 ppm or 300 ppm lead content limits under section 101(a) of the CPSIA. These preliminary determinations are based on materials that are untreated and unadulterated with respect to the addition of materials or chemicals, including pigments, dyes, coatings, finishes or any other substance, and that do not undergo any processing that could result in the addition of lead into the product or material":

    * Precious gemstones: diamond, ruby, sapphire and emerald
    * Semi-precious gemstones, "provided that the mineral or material is not based on lead or lead compounds and is not
          associated in nature with any mineral that is based on lead or lead compounds" (unacceptable stones include aragonite,
          bayldonite, boleite, cerussite, crocoite, linarite, mimetite, phosgenite, vanadinite & wulfenite).
    * Natural or cultured pearls
    * Wood
    * Natural fibers such as cotton, silk, wool, hemp, flax and linen
    * Other natural materials including coral, amber, feathers, fur and untreated leather


The Commission also "preliminarily determines that the following metals and alloys do not exceed the 600 ppm or 300 ppm lead content limits under section 101(a) of the CPSIA provided that no lead or lead-containing metal is intentionally added":

    * Surgical steel
    * Precious metals: gold (at least 10 karat), sterling silver (at least 925/1000), platinum, palladium, rhodium, osmium, iridium and ruthenium

(Thanks to Melissa in the R&T marketing department for compiling this info while I'm in Tucson at the Gem, Mineral and Bead shows.)</font>

[bmaupin]

**This is a repost from a cached version of the forum**

Russ Nobbs
Reply #19 on: Today at 05:30:49 AM:

UPDATE:
The CPSC issued revised  guidelines on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) for Small Businesses, Resellers, Crafters and Charities. You can read the overview at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/smbus/manufacturers.html and download the guidelines at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/smbus/cpsiasbguide.html

The guidelines list a group of common jewelry components (in Table B) that do not contain lead and  can be used (separately or in combination) and sold for use by children (provided they have not been treated or altered or undergone any processing that could result in the addition of lead.) It's the sort of common sense exemptions to the testing requirements based on evidence that they have never contained lead.

[Russ Nobbs]

Many thanks, Brian, for recovering those deleted posts from google cache(s).
We can't apologize  enough to new members and recent posters if we missed some. 

[Russ Nobbs]

Rena Klingenberg's jewelry Business Blog recently had a tip from Dita Basu of Bead-Z-Mommys-Business about a lead testing kit sold by Fire Mountain Gems (and many other places) that could be used to find out if an item contains lead.  http://www.firemountaingems.com/details.asp?PN=H203308BS

This "Instant Lead Testing Kit" from LeadCheck by Hybrivet Systems Inc is intended to test for lead on any surface. The article at Rena's site does question if the lead test kit is suitable for CPSIA testing.

An article on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) site says lead testing kits are unreliable. They studied two common types of home lead test kits and got a lot of false negatives and 2 false positives. See http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml08/08038.html. The kits are for testing the surface. They are not effective for testing objects that are covered with a lead free coating.

There are 2 other problems with lead testing kits for the CSPIA children's lead law:
1) The testing does not give a quantitative lead level as required by the law,
2) CSPIA require testing by specifically certified labs.

The lead test kits might be helpful to decide what items need to be sent to a qualified lab for testing. But I think they are better reserved for their original purpose -  testing painted surfaces for lead based paints.

The kits are available at many Ace Hardware stores, direct from LeadCheck / Hybrivet Systems and a number of other places. I discussed these kits in forums last year and told about problems with false results. I don't think they are  particularly useful in the jewelry trade. I'm not panning the kits just because they are sold by my favorite competitor. <g>

[Russ Nobbs]

How much does testing cost at an accredited CPSC lab cost if you want to sell your products for children and comply with the CPSIA lead in children's products law?

I found a fabric oriented blog with estimates from several labs. It's a good place to start if  you are researching the cost of having  your products tested. http://www.happypandababy.com/blog/2008/12/16/cpsia-testing-research-for-happy-panda/

[Russ Nobbs]

See http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ballot/ballot09/bicyclelead.pdf for details of a 2 year stay on lead limits for bicycles

The CPSC found that materials made without lead and used in bikes may have been failing more often than previously lead containing materials. In the interests of child safety they have a 2 year stay in the  implementation of the lead limits previously enacted for children's bike parts.

A little common sense rearing its head?  One can hope.

[dennise14]

Thank you for compiling such a thorough explanation of the issues and regulations surrounding lead in jewelry components.

It sounds like near the end of your essay, if we use only precious metal components (sterling silver), we don't have to worry about the lead issue...?

And what about gold-filled?

Thanks again!

[Russ Nobbs]

Sorry, Denise, Gold Filled is NOT included in the list of things that do not need to be tested.

Gold filled is not well understood. R&T had to explain to CA Prop 65 what it was to get it classified as class 2 material.

For CPSIA rules, the brass basemetal layer might have lead content.

However, if I read the rules correctly, by definition Gold Filled made from 12 or 14 Kt gold and sterling silver as the "inner" layer would be exempt. It is made from 2 exempt materials. Some Israeli GF is made with sterling backing.

Download the PDF referenced above to see the list of items that do not need to be tested. http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/smbus/cpsiasbguide.pdf

[Russ Nobbs]

Another site with helpful information is http://www.whatisthecpsia.com

[Russ Nobbs]

This week the CPSC provided several pdf's of guidelines for crafters and thrift stores.

Finally a number of items that do not contain lead are listed as exempt from required testing! For details see http://www.whatisthecpsia.com/?p=486

For the full text from the CPSC see http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/componenttestingpolicy.pdf

For the thrift store guidelines please see http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/thrift/thrguid.pdf

This eases the burden put on many small businesses but does not eliminate the problems.
Batch tracking labeling are still required. Phthalate testing is still required for some lead testing exempt items.

I still think the CPSIA needs to be repealed or heavily amended. There are some bills before congress to amend the CPSIA but there does not seem to be over all support in congress to correct their mistake.

[Russ Nobbs]

The CPSC is very slow to acknowledge that the CPSIA law needs to be amended.

A September 10, 2009 hearing in the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on Thursday addressed issues regarding the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). Read a summary of the hearing and testimony that  HTA (Handmade Toy Alliance) secretary wanted to give to the committee at http://sites.google.com/site/handmadetoyalliance/news---updates.

CPSC's new Chairperson Inez Tenenbaum is supposed to be sympathetic to small domestic businesses but her response to committee questions had a "wait and see" approach even as small businesses making children's products continue to go out of business.

"Nobody wanted mom-and-pop businesses to close up because of the new law, especially with no gain at all in children’s safety, but the rigid mandate of CPSIA is making a bad recession even worse for thousands of people. " says Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-Texas at http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=7344.

As members of an industry directly affected by the CPSIA, I encourage every one of us to make our concerns known to our members of Congress.

[Russ Nobbs]

If you are a silversmith or gold smith or you make precious metal jewelry and gem stone beads you may think you are exempt from CPSIA lead testing.
Guess again!
If you sell your goods in Illinois, and you make children's jewelry, you may be required to provide a warning label if the lead content is between 40ppm and 300 ppm based on a law that goes into effect January 1, 2010
(Currently the CPSC maximum allowable lead content is 300 ppm for children 12 or under.)
The warning labels should say "WARNING: CONTAINS LEAD. MAY BE HARMFUL IF EATEN OR CHEWED. MAY GENERATE DUST CONTAINING LEAD."
For details please see: Lead Poisoning Prevention Act

Illinois makes the arguments that this does not preempt the CPSIA because the CPSIA does not require warning labels and this relates to a level less than the CPSIA maximum.

The Illinois law does not require testing but a manufacturer may be required to test to confirm that the lead level is below the 40ppm and therefore does not require a warning label.

By the way, I've been asked if any state laws restrict the lead levels for ADULT jewelry. As far as I can ascertain, ONLY the California "Lead in Jewelry" law and a very similar Minnesota law restrict or control lead levels in jewelry intended for adults.
You can read the MN statute at https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=325E.389 If you know of other state laws the restrict the lead content for Adult jewelry, please post links or information here. Thanks!

Some useful links from Rena Klingenberg's Home Jewelry Business Success site include
http://jewelry-business-blog.com/jewelry_business/lead-containing-jewelry-law-the-official-faq/
Swarovski letter
Advice from Etsy’s Attorney