CPSIA Testing in Focus, Exemptions for In-House Labs
Under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, makers of children’s products must submit goods to approved laboratories for safety tests—something that is both costly and time-consuming as labs struggle to keep up with the heightened workload.
The law, which went into effect in 2008, was spurred by a series of recalls of toys found to be contaminated with lead—and has had far-reaching implications, including new regulations in the children’s apparel industry.
Recently, Mattel, the nation’s largest toy manufacturer and one of the companies at the center of the controversial recalls, was granted an exemption from third-party testing by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Under the CPSIA, companies with in-house labs can apply to have them approved to perform the mandatory testing. Not all of Mattel’s labs were approved.
Still, industry watchdogs say the move raises questions of fairness and whether the CPSC will be able to keep close tabs on companies performing their own testing.
Michael Green, executive director of the Center for Environmental Health in Oakland, Calif., said Mattel’s first-party testing gives it a competitive advantage. The toy giant, which has had its own laboratories for approximately 25 years, will realize a savings while other companies will continue to be forced to pay for costly tests at third-party labs.
More importantly, he said, the in-house testing may make it difficult for the CPSC to closely police Mattel and other companies that may be granted exemptions from third-party testing.
“The CPSC already has limited resources, and I fear it will be difficult for it to conduct oversight. It’s more difficult when labs are overseas [as some of Mattel’s approved labs are], and it is even more difficult when a lab is on-site at a [manufacturer’s] facility,” Green said. “On the one hand, I agree that on-site labs may be more efficient in that they may catch problems and fix them more quickly. But it feels dangerously close to having foxes guarding the chicken coop. In this case, it’s the biggest players, not necessarily the best players, that have an advantage.”
Richard Wortman, a partner at the law firm of Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP in Los Angeles, said not many apparel companies are in a position to apply for first-party testing. “My sense is that everyone [in the children’s apparel industry] is doing third-party testing. It is possible to start your own lab, but for the general apparel industry in Los Angeles, the cost is prohibitive, and there is a long delay in the actual setting-up of a lab,” Wortman said.
Stephen Lamar, executive vice president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association, said while he doesn’t know of any apparel companies that have in-house labs or that have applied for third-party testing exemption, he doesn’t rule out the possibility that eventually there will be. “The CPSIA has had a huge impact. As the toy industry finds ways to mitigate that impact, other industries will look to them for direction,” Lamar said.—Erin Barajas
