In 2007, Mattel Toy Company and their Chinese sub-suppliers made a $2.3 million mistake. They didn't follow their own in-house quality assurance steps. They failed to check the lead levels in the paint used on some toys they produced in China and sold in the USA. The result was a recall of millions of toys with lead levels above the allowable limits. Some say they got arrogant, others say they got lazy, still others were sympathetic to the monumental task of product testing and supply chain documentation. Whatever you believe, it happened. But the ensuing tsunami effect of that mistake is really quite amazing. If this can happen to a giant like Mattel, what about the smaller companies importing toys and children products for sale in the states? And so the witch hunt began. Instantly, all China toy manufacturers were labeled as sub-par. All toy suppliers and manufacturers became villains of the worst kind. Trust had been broken and accusations were flying around like a leaves in a wind storm.
Enticed by the low costs, toy manufacturers dove head first into China without really understanding the intricacies or consequences of the cultural differences. Assumptions of understanding each other were made, and in the end - those assumptions became weapons of destruction for many USA toy companies and their Chinese manufacturers. To avoid the stigma of the "Made in China" label, many manufacturers are looking for new suppliers in Malaysia, Indonesia or VietNam. However, many of these factories are just learning the ropes in toy production and USA consumer/retailer expectations. As in China, the pressure to produce the very best quality goods for the very lowest US dollar puts any factory at risk of succumbing to corner cutting. If history tells us anything, it's that the learning curve in any new factory is long and while they are learning, product safety issues could begin to surface here in the USA.
In response to this perceived invasion of unsafe toys, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in August 2008. This historic new law carried inside it so many new regulations, testing and certification requirements that over two years later we are still weeding through the details.
New lower lead limits for paint and substrates were mandated on all toys, children's products and furniture. Restrictions on the amount of specific chemical softeners (phthalates) that could be used in PVC and other plastics were called out. The once voluntary toy safety testing (ASTM F963) became a federal requirement for all toys intended for children under 12 years old. Tracking marks are now required on products and their packaging. For each product they produce, manufacturers will be required to maintain documentation on the design, materials, risk assessment, testing, suppliers and sub-suppliers. In-house Reasonable Product Testing Programs must be documented and maintained.
The CPSIA was vague and inclusive. In fact it was so inclusive that sadly many small businesses that could not afford the extensive new processes and additional testing costs have succumbed to its effects. Hand-crafters, stationary & art material suppliers, small toy retailers, and publishers have all been added to the obituary list. Testing labs and manufacturers of all sizes were scrambling to figure out how to meet the February 2011 testing & certification deadline set by CPSC last year.
On February 1, 2011, CPSC voted to extend the Stay of Enforcement on testing and certification for CPSIA lead in paint and substrates. The new December 2011 deadline gives manufacturers one quick breath of relief, but the pressure is still on the have these tests completed and documented within the next 10 months.
For consumers it likely feels as if the implementation of this new law is taking too long. From the outside it appears that manufacturers have been given one extension after another, and very little is being done to improve the safety of the toys on the store shelves. But from inside the walls of a manufacturer, there have been daily discussions & changes over the past two years geared toward implementing the CPSIA requirements. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent in labor, process designs, testing, documenting, developing product history files and auditing supply chains. Keep in mind that the great majority to toy manufacturers already have quality control processes in place. The CPSIA meant that they needed to redesign many of their internal systems to meet the new requirements.
At the risk of sounding dismissive, I am not really convinced that all this has resulted in safer toys overall. I definitely think it has raised the expectation of the consumer, and the responsibility of the manufacturers to be vigilant about testing their products and auditing their supply chains. Providing the safest products possible for our children is without a doubt the end goal. But some consumer advocacy groups use media frenzy to build up unrealistic consumer expectations of safety. Where a child plays with a toy or a stick or a cardboard box - the potential for injury is present. Parental responsibility and supervision has been eliminated from the equation in so many cases.
I am a parent, and a grandparent. I want my kids to grow up healthy without hidden mechanical or chemical hazards putting them at risk. Chemical hazards, like lead, need to be regulated and carefully managed at all levels of manufacturing. But adding layer after layer of testing, documentation, and certification regulations does not necessarily serve to make a safer product. Providing clear expectations and guidance to manufacturers is critical.
Some in the product safety industry fear that our regulatory system is so broken, repair seems impossible. Parents want safe toys. Manufacturers want clear guidelines that help them assure the safety of the products they produce without driving up the cost to the consumer. Importers/Retailers want a testing program with which they can comply without going bankrupt. President Obama's direction on regulatory reform asked our US government agencies to look at our systems to see where we can avoid excessive, inconsistent and unnecessary regulations. Perhaps that is a first glimpse at recognizing the mess we've made, and the first small step toward finding a solution.
