FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CPSIA: Basic issues with the law, as currently written

 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Fashion-Incubator User Forum Forum Index -> CPSIA & Consumer Safety
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Miracle
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Location: CA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:16 am    Post subject: CPSIA: Basic issues with the law, as currently written Reply with quote

Quote:
To recap, this law was passed (424 votes to 1) to protect children from unsafe toys after last yearís widely publicized recalls (by the way, recalls have actually decreased by 46%). What few consumers realize is this legislation affects more than toys. What few clothing manufacturers realize is this also affects them. Of the ones who do know, most of them think it only applies to childrenís clothes. Other than apparel the law includes diapers, blankets (housewares), books, videos, computer and electronic products, strollers, cribs, car seats, and anything humans come in contact with in their environment. Our objections are not higher standards for product safety or even the costs involved per se. The problem is Congress wrote the law and forced the CPSC to implement it before the regulations were written. These regulations are not written by people who are familiar with manufacturing and thus, impose unnecessary burdens.

Three brief points:

1. Regarding the phthalate regulations (a lengthy discourse omitted for brevity) testing for phthalates is roughly three times the cost of lead testing. For purposes of comparison, lead testing is expected to be about $30,000 for a ten piece line in three colorways.

2. The lack of available labs needed to absorb the dramatic increase of testing required. Assuming everyone had the money and time to do it, it would still be impossible without the facilities and inspectors to do it.

3. The requirement of ďthird party testingĒ. For our purposes this means you cannot avoid legal liability by relying on testing results supplied to you from your vendors. No no. You have to retest everything yourself. See why itís problematic that these regulations were not written by those with a background in manufacturing?

The problem we have is that this is a very popular law with consumers and legislators. Because it is so complex, they donít know what it really means or what its effects will be. In the upper echelons, most of the high level organizations like the AAFA, The Toy Association and the electronics industry are lobbying against it. Their problem is that they are not the grassroots. Thatís you. The vast majority of Americans think this is a Great Law, striking back at unethically made low cost imports and thus, legislators are leery of what high level representatives say. Thatís why itís up to you to talk to other consumers like you. We need for consumers to know that this law will put many of us rather than importers out of business at a time when the economy can least absorb it. They need to know that come February, many of the products they expect to find in stores wonít be there. I think consumers will start to get the hint once they start getting tickets for transporting their infants without car seats because they canít buy them in stores. Considering the consequences, there is little doubt the rules and regulations such as they are, will be rescinded. The only issue is, will they be rescinded before they bury too many of us? This law represents the last nail in the coffin of U.S. manufacturers.


From: http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/national-bankruptcy-day/


Last edited by Miracle on Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:23 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Miracle
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Location: CA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
To give you an idea, I heard a lot of the same questions there that Iíve heard from many of you. For example, one person thought they were off the hook for the new CPSIA regulations because they only do full package private label and thought their package supplier was going to have to deal with this, not them. Okay people, letís do a quick review of Manufacturing 101 because many here are also confused on the matter. Whether you own a single sewing machine, you are the manufacturer if you cause the item to exist. That is a legal designation and not my opinion.


from: http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-confusion-run-amok/


Last edited by Miracle on Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Miracle
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Location: CA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Unit vs Component Testing
Component testing means you can test your inputs (fabric, buttons etc) going into the product individually. Unit testing means a completed product is tested rather than individual inputs. In the panel discussion, Stephen Lamar (AAFA) talks about this, some 21 minutes into the video. He also mentions this law is overwhelming the testing community because we donít have enough labs even assuming everyone had the time, money and logistical infrastructure to do it.

Component testing is preferable for two main reasons.

This saves money and time if youíre repeating fabrications and inputs over several styles -as you should be for continuity purposes and meeting minimums for purchasing.

It achieves the safety intent of the law best.

Unit testing is not preferable for two reasons:

-Itís wasteful. If youíre using the same exact inputs in your products across styles, itís dumb to retest the same zipper that is identical in each unit.

-It is less safe, circumventing the intent of the law. Letís say you melt down a widget or whatever to reduce it into constituencies for testing. The total weight of the product is calculated in comparison to the weight of lead or phthalates so maybe the product is deemed within guidelines -but that doesnít mean itís safe. For example, letís assume the major attributes of the product -like a flat screen tv- are inaccessible to a child and wonít be touched by them but the on and off button is and itís completely constructed of lead. Should this product pass? Under current guidelines of unit testing it would but it shouldnít. It would not pass with component testing. In other words, it is more important to test inputs as those can be weighted with respect to accessibility by the child.

....

Why unit testing is preferable:

The veracity of component testing can be questionable under certain circumstances. By this I mean that it is very very common in outsourcing situations for your contractor to make unauthorized substitutions for components at the last minute. This is the bane of small manufacturing. While you may have tested the proposed component when in the sourcing stage, unless youíre a large concern who operates your own plants overseas, you often donít know what youíre getting until it lands at the dock. At this point you donít have many choices. Maybe youíre ďluckyĒ in that the only last minute change was shortening the sleeves but youíre stuck. You have to get with buyers to see if theyíll take the goods, hopefully without a discount or other losses.

The other problem with component testing is that just as we make prototypes which we then present to buyers for orders, our suppliers do too. Just as you sometimes have to make changes to a style that was ordered and have to go back to your customer and okay the change, weíre working off of prototype components sometimes. You only have assurances on stock items. This is why suppliers will often call you to glean the liklihood of you buying a particular item down the road because they want to know if theyíll have enough orders themselves to justify producing it. As with us, there may be changes between the prototype and production component.



From http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-unit-vs-component-testing/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Fashion-Incubator User Forum Forum Index -> CPSIA & Consumer Safety All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group