Lead in Toys - Questions

[dkeller_nc]

Gentlemen/Ladies - I read through the sticky thread at the top of the forum looking for info on the new "lead in toys testing requirement" law. I've a working knowledge of what's been proposed, and the 1 year moratorium on enforcement, but I've a question that I've not been able to find an answer to, and am hoping that some of you that have been paying closer attention to the new law will know the answer:

What constitutes an item "for a child under the age of 12"? Obviously, something like a toy, clothing, crib or other item specifically labeled and marketed for a child would fall under the requirements (whatever they wind up being). However, I'm wondering if the law affects items that could be used by a child, whether marketed that way or not.

The specific case I have in mind is miniature furniture. There's a collector's market for highly crafted miniatures, particularly colonial miniatures, and most of these collectors are not children. So the question is whether a 1:12 scale chippendale corner chair would be considered a "toy" under the definition of the act, regardless of whether it's advertised as a miniature, and a statement is made that it is not intended for, nor tested for compiance for, children.

Thoughts?

 

[JimmyC]

David,
My thoughts are that if they are made and sold as miniature furniture collectibles, and not as toys, then they shouldn't come under the law.
But, the is just my two cents worth:dontknow:.

 

[ScottM]

I'm with Jimmy on this but I do not know for sure. Collectibles and toys should be two different things.

 

[dkeller_nc]

"Collectibles and toys should be two different things."

Scott - While I certainly agree, I'm curious about what provisions the law and the regulations crafted around the law will make. My guess is that some enterprising soul somewhere will make what is an obvious toy (like a wooden train set), and put some sort of disclaimer on the package that states that "this is not a toy". Sort of along the lines of an airsoft gun - the packages all say "this is not a toy!", but of course they are most definitely a toy - you can't hunt or defend yourself with one, so the only thing they're good for is a toy.

My concern is that I get involved in making a bunch of these, and even though I know that most of those that will buy them are considerably older than 12, there's a chance that someone could look at them and say "these are clearly dollhouse furniture".

 

[WoodWrangler]

Now I"ll need to look again, but I just read in an article this week that the last was passed, but then not being enforced for another year because there were so many questions about it. Let me see if I can find that for you.

 

[sapwood]

I think your concerns are valid.
However, according to Wood Magazine (responding to a question asked by our own Howard Acheson :mrgreen

"Flooded with questions and concerns about the new law, the CPSC issued a one year stay of enforcement, pushing the deadline back to Feburary 10, 2010, to allow time for clarification of the rules."

HTH,
Roger

 

[JimmyC]

"Collectibles and toys should be two different things."

Scott - While I certainly agree, I'm curious about what provisions the law and the regulations crafted around the law will make. My guess is that some enterprising soul somewhere will make what is an obvious toy (like a wooden train set), and put some sort of disclaimer on the package that states that "this is not a toy". Sort of along the lines of an airsoft gun - the packages all say "this is not a toy!", but of course they are most definitely a toy - you can't hunt or defend yourself with one, so the only thing they're good for is a toy.

My concern is that I get involved in making a bunch of these, and even though I know that most of those that will buy them are considerably older than 12, there's a chance that someone could look at them and say "these are clearly dollhouse furniture".

Well David, if you are going to worry about all that, and what maybe could happen, or might happen then I guess maybe you shouldn't do the job, because I'm fairly sure that no one on this site is going to tell you, unequivocally, that you won't have a problem with the new standards. I would suggest staying away from anything smaller than a full size armoire, just in case a kid wants to call it a toy.

JMTCW

 

[WoodWrangler]

Thank you Roger ... you read what I read.

 

[dkeller_nc]

"Well David, if you are going to worry about all that, and what maybe could happen, or might happen then I guess maybe you shouldn't do the job, because I'm fairly sure that no one on this site is going to tell you, unequivocally, that you won't have a problem with the new standards. I would suggest staying away from anything smaller than a full size armoire, just in case a kid wants to call it a toy.

I'm definitely not expecting someone to "make a ruling" as it were, but I'm curious as to whether someone's done the research on the proposed rules to know if there's a mechanism by the consumer product safety division to decide whether something is, or isn't, a toy. I'm sort of doubting that it would simply be left up to a manufactuer to declare whether something constitutes a toy.

And as a small maker, I (and others) can't take the chance that the agency will retroactively declare that a bunch of stuff that's been made and sold falls under the rules for testing, and render a large fine. Sort of like what happened to flintlock rifle makers about 10 years ago - the ATF decided that their products fell under the requirements to have a Federal Firearms License, and that back fees and penalties were due - on all of their production for the last couple of decades. That resulted in quite a few makers having to find other careers.

 

[McRabbet]

David,

Our Woodworking group (the Western NC Woodworkers Association) produced over 200 hand-made wooden toys last Fall for needy children and we too are effected by the new law. As others have mentioned above, the Enforcement of the Law's Lead Limits were postponed (stayed in legal parlance) until February 10, 2010, but stated that products must still not contain more than PPM lead. Here is a second announcement made in early February that outlines the key aspects of the new Law. There are several links imbedded in both of these links. The most difficult hurdles we see in the new Law are the Testing Requirements. I recommend you review the website link below.

Our group will make toys this year, but we will only make them of solid hardwoods with no exposed fasteners like nuts, bolts or screws. In saying "solid hardwood", we are not going to use Baltic Birch plywood as we did last year because we do not know the lead content of the glues used in its manufacture. We won't finish them either.

My advice is to consult the CPSC website for definitive information; any other source including here is hearsay.

 

[Travis Porter]

I think I understand where Dave is coming from. What is or is not a toy and how is something classified as a toy. I can't say that I know the answer to that. I remember years ago that I heard or read that the Japanese were keeping rear seats out of vehicles so they would be classified as a truck instead of a car and hence paid lower import taxes because of it.

The definition from the toy manufacturer's association is pretty good IMO.

A toy is a product or material designed or clearly intended for use in play by children of less than 14 years of age. There are some specific exclusions from the legal definition. For example, Christmas decorations and crackers, detailed scale models for adult collectors, folk dolls, toy steam engines, bicycles designed for sport and for travel on the public highway (cycles with a maximum saddle height of 435mm are considered toys), video toys connected to a video screen and fashion jewellery for children are not considered to be toys.

 

[McRabbet]

Here is the definition from the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act:

122 STAT. 3038 PUBLIC LAW 110–314—AUG. 14, 2008​

(e) DEFINITIONS.—
(1) DEFINED TERMS.—As used in this section:​

(B) The term ‘‘children’s toy’’ means a consumer product designed or intended by the manufacturer for a child 12 years of age or younger for use by the child when the child plays.​

The Consumer Product Safety Act provides a more verbose definition that covers all Children's products and may help clarify the requirements for these Acts.​

SEC. 3. [15 U.S.C. § 2052] Consumer Product Safety Act Oct 27, 1972​

(a) IN GENERAL.—In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.--The term "appropriate Congressional committees" means the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
(2) CHILDREN’S PRODUCT.--The term "children's product" means a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger. In determining whether a consumer product is primarily intended for a child 12 years of age or younger, the following factors shall be considered:
(A) A statement by a manufacturer about the intended use of such product, including a label on such product if such statement is reasonable.
(B) Whether the product is represented in its packaging, display, promotion, or advertising as appropriate for use by children 12 years of age or younger.
(C) Whether the product is commonly recognized by consumers as being intended for use by a child 12 years of age or younger.
(D) The Age Determination Guidelines issued by the Commission staff in September 2002, and any successor to such guidelines.​

You can find the full text of these two laws here.​

​

​

​

 

[dkeller_nc]

Thanks, Rob, that's helpful. I think the main danger is running afoul of the phrase "Whether the product is commonly recognized by consumers as being intended for use by a child 12 years of age or younger."

It'll be interesting to see if any of the manufacturers (as opposed to craftspeople) try to pull a fast one and label something that's rather obviously a toy as "not for children under the age of 13".