The $4000 handmade rattle
MAKE editor and publisher Dale Dougherty has more on the well-intentioned-but-actually-awful Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).
Years ago, Jason Gold was looking for a rattle for his new baby. He wanted something safe and made of natural materials. "I was trying to find a rattle that wasn't coated in paint or made of plastic," said Gold. Not finding any, he made a rattle out of wood. Thinking that other parents might be looking for alternatives to mass-produced items of questionable materials, he started Camden Rose, a manufacturer of wooden and fabric toys in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Today, the Camden Rattle sells for $15 through a network alternative retail stores and places like Whole Foods.The $4000 handmade rattleThis year, Jason Gold thought the economy would be his biggest worry this holiday season. However, it turned out that the 2008 holiday season was the busiest ever for Camden Rose. The bigger worry for Gold has been figuring out if the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) will put him and many others like him out of business in 2009.
The CPSIA on the surface seems like a good idea, coming as a response to the recall of toys made in China and sold in the US that had potentially harmful levels of lead, phthalates or other toxins. The law's intentions are good but its side effects are not. Lost in the details were provisions that may deal a serious blow to America's cottage industries and individuals who make things by hand. This comes at a time when the unemployed and underemployed are seeking creative ways to make a living from home.
There are three parts to the CPSIA. The first requires independent testing and certification. "We've gone from no certification to the strictest form of certification in the world," says Gold. "It might cost me $4,000 to test my rattle." It's not just the cost of testing. The tests must be done for each component, and for each item, not for the manufacturing process itself.
the latest
latest episodes
i eated lead aller time wen i was yung and my brane is jus fine
Some sort of certification should be done, though.
What's to say that a design error might not cause the wooden rattle to splinter, and harm the baby/user in that way?
There must be some sort of middle ground here.
I bet the "details" weren't lost by any means. The toy industry probably wrote the legislation. They were deliberately put in there to suppress competition from cottage industries.
buy cheap, already approved wooden salad bowls and re-man them into kiddie products.
What are we all talking about, this is just another example of vagrancy laws etc. Make everyone a criminal all the time so you can pick them up or shut them down at will. No one cares about the actual child safety.
My 14 month old is always smacking me or her siblings with her toys -- this one looks like it would really hurt.
Is the $4K in testing costs just for kids items? Or is it for all handicrafts?
@2:
I think the difference is that splinters are a known risk of wooden toys, and can be dealt with by parents fairly easily. It seems highly improbable that a serious or lethal splinter injury from a toy such as that rattle (or the wooden blocks and dolls I had as a child) could occur before a parent would notice. Parents can protect their children from splinters (and other broken pieces from toys) at the consumer level.
Toxins in plastics, however, aren't as obvious, and many parents probably wouldn't even suspect the safety of a plastic toy before the toys from China gained so much media attention. And those toxins can't be detected by parents before they give the toy to their child or while they watch the child playing with it. Even if they chewed on the plastic for an hour themselves before giving it to a kid, they'd have no way of knowing its potential harm. The only way to test it is by having access to a laboratory. This is why it is plausible to have toys tested for toxins. Unfortunately, this particular piece of legislation mangles the whole thing pretty horribly. I'm still not quite sure what the best way to handle this problem is, but I'm sure this isn't it.
First: The certification is not _that_ strict.
Second: I _really_ doubt certification is required for this product. Certification is required if the product is subject to existing limits on lead and phthalates. Since this is an unpainted wood product, there's no possible significant source of lead or phtalates. I don't see how this would be necessary.
Third: $4000 isn't really a lot. And I think you could probably get it cheaper. Lead tests are simple to do.
Sounds like a good opportunity for some enterprising folks to undercut the competition by supplying discounted or bulk rate product testing services. I also wonder if there could be formed a collective whereby many product makers could submit for testing en masse to reduce overall cost then perhaps profit share to offset expense.
Maybe the collective itself could pool the funds to attain the required certification for testing on its own?
There are so many people in crafts currently and it is only growing so there seems a creative solution he just waiting to be "whittled" out of the rawness of the CPSIA.
@jjasper
According to the article, it seems that this is about items intended for children.
I can sympathize with small-scale craftspeople. But this particular rattle is sold through at least one major national retailer. Not to mention that Camden Rose appears to be a bit larger than a cottage industry. $4000 seems like a small sum for something that's going to be used by potentially thousands of infants across the country--and even smaller when compared to a multimillion dollar civil suit and safety recall.
There appears to be a need for changes to the act as it, but this rattle from this company isn't a great choice to represent cottage industries and individual craftspeople.
just give the kid a rock.
@8 Alex M,
$4000 isn't really a lot? You know that the testing is required for each style of product right? At $4000, this guy will have to sell 266 units just to cover the cost of the testing. As a small business owner (thankfully I don't make childeren's products) if I had to pay that much for each style of clothing I produce it would put me out of business. If this guy's only making 5 different types of toy that's $20,000 in testing.
Show me a home business that can absorb that cost.
As long as the rock is tested for lead deposits first.
@Alex_M, as a toy manufacturer myself, I can say that you have no idea what you are talking about.
The CPSIA testing requirement is that strict. This rattle definitely requires certification and it definitely costs around $4000 (based on my analysis of the photo I see three 'components' all of which require about $1200-1500 in testing.
When you say that $4000 isn't really a lot, you are kidding right?
Let's say that the manufacturing cost of this rattle is $4, it sells to Whole Foods for $7.50 and it sells retail for $15. If Jason's business has a net profit (after all expenses) of 10%, then he needs to sell 5400 rattles just to cover his testing costs and he and his family need to eat ramen noodles until 5400 rattles are sold. I am guessing but, if he is successful, maybe he sells a few tens of thousands of rattles a year.
Remember that each item in his toy line needs the same testing. Pretty soon your up-front testing costs far exceed your entire annual profit. Then you go out of business.
This law was passed as retribution to big manufacturers. Those companies failed to even take the most basic precautions on toys made in batches of the tens of millions. Its effect will be to put small business out of business and to prevent new ones from starting.
As the law is written, if you change the color of the hair on an action figure, the entire figure needs an additional $10,000 in testing. So, you'll be seeing a lot less variety and a lot less innovation.
The law seems to be the beginning of regulating toy safety as one would regulate pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
If Jason is still in business this summer he can get even more excited. Because on August 10th, each of those rattles will need to be permanently marked (laser engraved maybe?) with a batch #, lot #, his company name and address and other tracking information.
This is a really bad law with unintended consequences that are so far reaching. It is not just 'toys' but all children's products which need this testing. That includes clothing, shoes, posters for the wall, furniture, pens & paper, etc...anything that is 'generally recognized' as used by children aged 12 and under.
Given that this country has a lot of problems right now (War, Politics, Economy, Bankruptcy, etc), the CPSIA Act of 2008 is unnoticed at the bottom of the pile.
I'll tell you one more thing: Let's say that Jason or I spend huge sums to certify our toy line. Then Congress revisits the issue and relaxes the standards, who is going to give us back our money? Relaxing standards at this point only benefits the industry players who don't care about toy safety. Those companies either ignore the law or choose to forge their certificates....and they are the very people you were trying to stop in the first place!
Is this the same act that made Amazon notify me that the CD's I sell there (my band) have to be certified as safe? I have not responded because I would have no idea how to do such a thing. Luckily, we don't sell children's CDs:
"Dear Amazon.com Advantage vendor:
We previously wrote to you on November 19, 2008 regarding requirements imposed by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (the 'Act') with respect to safety warnings applicable to children's toys and games.
This message outlines the steps Amazon.com will require vendors to take to confirm their compliance with another aspect of the Act, namely, its provisions limiting lead and phthalate content of children's products.
We will need your response by January 15, 2009 regarding lead and phthalate content compliance. If you supply any children's products (that is, any products intended for children 12 and under) to Amazon.com, you will need to submit a completed spreadsheet listing those products and the applicable compliance information (a blank spreadsheet can be found in the Resource Center of your Advantage account), and return it to us via the Contact Us form.
This issue is described in further detail below, along with information about what you need to do to ensure the compliance of your products offered on Amazon.com."
#2 and #8
Because of the language in the law, yes, testing is required. It does not make exceptions for objects made of materials that do not contain plastics or which use materials that have already been tested (the acrylic yarn that granny at the church craft fair made into a scarf for your kiddo? Doesn't matter if it has been tested, the final scarf must be tested, and if granny makes a second one, changes up her stitch, that constitutes a new model, and must be tested too...)
Oh, and that testing? Has to be done by 'approved' providers. Of which there are very few. And they charge a ton.
Basically, the law itself is good. We just need some common sense exceptions for home crafters and those who work in meduims where lead is not an issue.
Heck, we could make the exceptions only for domestic US 'handmade products, and cover our xenophobic butts.
But still, it needs to be amended.
What I don't get is why a maker item requires testing if all its parts already have MSDSs available. Isn't every fabric, every button, every adhesive already tested? I can see how this rattle might not fit that bill, but most items are made out of known and tested materials.
Maybe the retailers should pay for the testing?
And: yay. The same well-intentioned, proportionate legislative response is now being applied to the entire US economy.
Protests are going up on Etsy. This one got my attention the other day.
http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=19984428
This law goes into effect Feb. 10th of this year, and also seems to ban the sale of second-hand toys and even clothing, and will likely put second-hand stores out of business. I can't even imagine how badly this is going to affect my community, where many families rely solely on second-hand donations, and there is brisk resale market for clothes.
Unfinished natural products will probably be exempted from testing. This includes wood and fibers such as cotton, silk, wool, hemp, flax and linen.
Don't get me wrong, though, I don't like the law even with the new exemptions.
I feel for the small manufacturers. Note that the consumer gets shafted three times: as a user who has reduced choice because of increased production cost, as a consumer who pays more and as a taxpayer who pays for legislation and regulation for product safety.
I blame greedy big corporations for this. The history of product safety legislation is a fascinating cat and mouse game between public employees (bureaucrats if you wish) trying to screen out legitimately hazardous products and industry lawyers end-running the rules or finding a small loophole they can shove a whole line of dangerous toys through.
BTW, regarding this rattle, the wood itself does need to be tested even though it's a natural product. Kids chew things and some woods have quite high concentrations of toxic stuff in them.
One solution: create a separate website extolling the acoustic properties of this device to gullible audiophiles, and sell it to them at 500$ apiece (a bargain compared to similarly-effective audiophile products.)
Should be easy enough to sell 8-10 of those, amply covering the tests.
Seriously, though: isn't there a way for all those "cottage industries" to get together and pool their resources to bring the costs of testing down, and lobby for changes to the law that would still preserve children's safety, but also keep those small businesses open?
here's a list of items with their new price tags:
http://www.etsy.com/search_results.php?search_query=CPSIA&search_type=tag_title&page=1&min=&max=&order=price_desc
here's a post on the issue from an esty seller:
-----------
" This is about the law I've been closely following for the past month or so.
http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/010609kvue-kids_lead-me.466a87af.html
I have all of my baby things on sale in my shop because as of right now, I will not be able to sell them (or give them away) after Feb. 9th.
If you're expecting a child, you should stock up on all baby & children's stuff you like NOW because most of it will not be available after Feb. 9th.
From Feb. 10th on, everything that is sold or distributed (Happy Meal toys or donations to the Salvation Army, hospitals, etc.) has to be certified that it's lead free. That certification comes through testing. After Aug 9th, everything has to be tested by an independent 3rd party laboratory (there's only 14 of them in the US). The cost of testing one pair of my little $15 shoes would run about $2500. Since I make less than 10 pairs of any one kind, there's no way it makes financial sense to test them.
The penalties for not following this law are up to $100,000 fine and 5 years (felony) prison PER ITEM.
This law encompasses everything and anything a child 12 and under uses or comes into contact with. It's not about toys.
No more used children's books, no more handmade baby blankets, no more grannies selling slippers at a church bazaar. Ebay and etsy are about to be decimated. Amazon is already demanding certificates for used kids books (can't be done). QVC will no longer sell children's products. Walmart is sending back all its "non-compliant" merchandise to the people they "bought" it from (and not paying for it) so they aren't left holding the bad. Burlington Coat Factory is doing the same. Toys R Us is already pulling stuff from the shelves. If you happen to pick up something they missed, I guess it's computer picks it up because the cashiers are instructed to tell people they can't sell it to them (after they're already in line at the register). It's ALL emcompassing.
Look for what few school supplies, baby clothes, and sports equipment that are tested to be extremely expensive. Look for lots of sales on toys & kids stuff in the next few weeks.
European toy makers (nice wooden trains and toys, etc.) who operate under stricter safety laws than the US, have pulled out of the American maket already and will no longer sell here.
Many many companies are being put out of business by this and Feb 10th is being called National Bankruptcy Day. It's absolutely insane.
This law is not about safety. It's about assuming everything that's out there is dangerous, when it's not -- and punishing anyone who's in business. Things will be no more safer on Feb. 11th than they were on Feb. 9th. Our dumps and landfills will just be overflowing with perfectly good merchandise our government has decided to turn into "toxic waste" -- actual words from the Act itself. This is already law and cannot be changed without an amendment from Congress.
Read this for more information from a guy with a great business who employs a bunch of people -- all of which is going to have to close because of this law:
http://learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com/
Pay special attention to the part about where there are only 2 cases of injury from lead (one from a toy, one from jewelry) that caused this law -- and his comments about how this goes way too far the other way.
Tell people you know about this. Call your congresspeople and senators. Only 1 person from all of Capital Hill voted against this bill. They all supported it to "save the children."
ht t sy t bt t snds lk ths gys r vctm f th hystr thy nd ppl lk thm drmmd p bt ld sfty, "chmcls", nd th lk. Y md ths bd gly wdn Whlfds ty gy, nw y mst slp n t. T whch sy, "h."
@ palindromic:
The Shun Mook company beat you to that years ago:
http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm
ah Ross! that is PRICELESS!
I've been following this on Consumerist, and basically, the authorities aren't gonna be wasting their time going after etsy and the like. They have very limited funding and will focus on imports.
The law as it currently stands is fairly horrific. The issue of small toy companies is just the tip of the iceberg. This law applies to providing EXISTING items for use by children. This means every school and daycare must prohibit all children from using all existing, untested toys and books. Every public library must prohibit children from reading existing untested books. This thing is a nightmare.
http://kidsproducts.suite101.com/article.cfm/childrens_books_and_the_cpsia
I emailed my congressman, Peter DeFazio, about this the first time I heard about it (presumably here) and I got a response about 2 weeks ago.
One of the more relavent points he made:
"Furthermore, in response to complaints from small manufacturers, the CPSC is now considering some exemptions to the new regulations. Specifically, they are considering an exemption from testing certain materials that are not scientifically known to contain lead (like wood, cotton, gemstones, leather, etc), as well as looking into easing restrictions on batch testing for small manufacturers. The current regulation mandates all products be tested for lead, as well as all of its components. This is a burden for small manufacturers."
@ RossInDetroit:
Huh? How does that relate to anything I said..
http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/how-you-can-help
Go here for a good letter to your representatives.
@ Palindromic: sorry, it doesn't. I was referring to the post above you and got your name in by mistake. He said sell the wooden doughnut things to audiophiles for big $$ so I found a link to $$$ audiophile wooden doughnut things. My fault.
In compensation, here's a link to the whole audiophile wooden doughnut controversy in Stereophile, which was then the leading serious audio mag:
That whole audiophile wooden doughnut kerfuffle
This is not only horrible for small manufacturers - it affects all prior items and those items include BOOKS.
This means that every library in the US - including schools - will have to ban children under 12 from entering just to comply with this testing law. Or remove all books.
Unintended consequences: coming soon to a location near you.
@help i cant comfirm my username: "I've been following this on Consumerist, and basically, the authorities aren't gonna be wasting their time going after etsy and the like."
Unless, of course, the mayor has some reason to be mad at you, or maybe some big campaign contributor. A small business owner can ignore this, but it turns them into the domestic equivalent of an illegal alien.
Alex M - lead and pthalate testing are required for just about anything that is sold to children under 12. But you are right, it really shouldn't be required for stuff like this that couldn't possibly contain lead or pthalates. That's one of the biggest problems with this law.
And yes, it can be done cheaper... in China. Much of this certification will be done overseas.
It seems like there was a more reasonable solution: enforce more crippling penalties on companies that are caught selling tainted toys. That way there is an incentive for large companies to be more careful, while people who know their goods are safe could continue as they were.
@eadwacer
precisely... the regulatory agency may claim that they won't necessarily prosecute crafters, but it opens a whole sh*tstorm of problematic possibilities. You never know when someone may try to bully your business, and this would make quite a handy tool.
We've seen this happen in the past with business licensing.
People over the age of 4 can learn not to chew on plastic or eat their books. If they can't, the solution is to provide sanctioned chew toys and edible books so that they do not use the lead ones. Baby toys and baby bottles should of course be tested, but even this will have far less of an impact on the welfare of society than would more rigorous enforcement of testing and transparency for cosmetics, chemical and pharmaceutical companies that contaminate our environs in insidious ways.
A certain amount of schaedenfreude in me foresees open rebellion with parents everywhere chanting "Contra il pizzo!" because they are unable to buy - for example - cloth diapers and secondhand cribs, baby clothes from shonky shops, and educational software (Contributory claims if the computer isn't tested!) DVD's, food grinders, organic homemade butt creams, crayons and Kid's Plates at restaurants. Carpets in apartments? Wall paint in apartments? Where is the management going to get the money for the new, more expensive products?
Exemptions need to be passed for this law, exemptions that cannot be gamed.
argh
whenever I'm in India, or friends are coming up, I place orders for some fabulous Channapatna wooden toys for my kid.
Wood. solid, vegetable paints, and? I am an adult, I play with my son, we can tell if the stuff is too beat to use.
this crazy little personal responsibility thing I have? I dunno, it seems to work, and the toys rock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channapatna_toys
when I am in Chennai, this is the place:
Cane & Bamboo Indian Handicrafts
# 45, Ethiraj Salai
Egmore, Chennai, Tamilnadu 600008, India
044 28211649‎
they buy from Maya Organic, a wonderful cooperative that helps teach people to work, build, and live well in the modern world. And? they have really cool toys.
http://mayaorganic.com/products_pages/toy/product_lac.htm
if anyone knows a US dealer, pls let me know! :)
What if you called it a sculpture, and sold it as 'art'? Would that require testing?
Perhaps the solution is to make it out of beef.
what about having customers sign some type of waver when they purches the product stating that they accept responsibility for anything that happens with the toy after said purchase? would that solve the legal issues.
According to the Act, wood is an exempted material and lead testing IS NOT required for items made entirely out of wood. (the picture indicates that this rattle is made entirely out of wood).
supplemntary information B, no. 4, on page 1.
What about a disclaimer on the packaging? Something like the "sold for academic and informational purposes only" disclaimers on books about how to grow pot or build bombs. Or the "This product contains materials that the State of California believes cause cancer." warnings on just about everything.
Maybe "Under the CPSIA act of 2008: This item is not for use by children under the age of 13." Then it's clearly not a child's toy and does not need to be tested?
This will put a crimp in my dad's retirement plans. He was planning on building all kinds of wooden kids toys (wagons, planes, blocks, trains, domino sets and backgammon sets, etc.) in his workshop for sale at the church's crafts bazaar and as gifts to family and friends and whatnot. it sounds like he will not even be able to build any as gifts for the grandkids? Is that right?
I'm certainly glad they solved all the other problems facing our society before banning all products for children.
Don't assume that because it's wood, it's non-toxic. Many woods can make you sick if you chew on them or inhale the sawdust. Wood also absorbs bacteria, etc. Of course, you can always seal it with checmicals...
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0802.htm
I heard about this law. There is a lot of concern that it will also apply to second-hand products, thus putting thrift stores out of business.
shutz,
We're working on it. Getting the word out, calling politians no for weeks...us little guys don't have lobbyists.
To those who say they won't go after the little guy:
What happens when that little suddenly gets some good publicity or sells just enough to be noticed but can't afford the testing?
What happens when their competetor decides to report them?
What happens when their few small retail accounts and shops refuse to take orders without certification?
What happens when the craft show requires certification or ceases to even invite artisans with children's goods? (already happening sad to say)
What happens when Native Americans can't pass down their culture with crafts and costumes for pow wows?
#45: "(the picture indicates that this rattle is made entirely out of wood)." Except for the glue holding it together.
Sell as "executive toy", or "novelty item". Sex toys are sold that way, since there are laws about stuff you put into your body.
I was asmused to see the warning "Not for sale to children under 18" on a set of children's cutlery here, in the UK, which were basically identical to these ones: http://www.amazon.com/x/dp/B00020QJ6M This is because of a law saying "no knives should be sold to kids".
Unintended consequence: until two years after she can legally become a parent, a mother can still not buy cutlery for her baby.
Hell for Leather brings up another interesting effect on the motorcycle industry:
http://hellforleathermagazine.com/2009/01/consumer-product-safety-improv.html
"What's to say that a design error might not cause the wooden rattle to splinter, and harm the baby/user in that way?
There must be some sort of middle ground here."
Middle ground?
How's this for a middle ground: The modern homo-sapiens (that's us) has been around for 8,000 years according the the most absolutely conservative estimates.
And guess what - we've made it this far without federal testing of wooden baby toys, I bet we can make it another 8 millennia without the human race collapsing due to splinters from wooden toys.