| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lisa DOWNTOWN JOEY
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject: Flammability - Children's Pajamas |
 |
|
thought this was interesting. Bought my son Batman flannel pajamas at Target for Christmas:
and noticed this tag on it:
Umm, am I missing something? These are clearly pajamas. How are manufacturers able to get away with this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Miracle
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Location: CA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well that's obvious. You have your kid sleeping in a Halloween costume!
:lol: :P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Melissa McKeagney
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I don't have a good answer for you, I've seen the same tags on the "pajamas" that I've bought for my daughter. Seems to me it's more a question of liability than any real safety hazard.
Melissa
Last edited by Melissa McKeagney on Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Miracle
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Location: CA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But seriously tho, I googled it and found this
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-53378907.html
it's old but...
| Quote: |
The children's sleepwear standard, more stringent than the general wearing apparel standard, required that fabrics used in sleepwear must self-extinguish when exposed to an open flame (mainly lighters, candles, and matches).
Polyester garments meet this standard. Untreated cotton garments will not. A brief experiment in the 1970s using fabrics treated with the flame-retardant chemical TRIS ran into powerful congressional opposition. The chemical TRIS had not been developed when the sleepwear regulation was adopted, but after it began to be used to treat children's sleepwear, the government classified it as a potential carcinogen. Negative publicity about the TRIS flame retardant treatment left polyester as the only fabric that could meet the standard.
But during the 1980s, it became clear that consumers preferred softer, more comfortable cotton garments for their children. Unable to buy cotton in traditional sleepwear, they opted for T-shirts, or garments marketed as "daywear, underwear or playwear" which were often sold in the children's sleepwear departments in retail stores.
The CPSC tried mightily to enforce the standard, but was frustrated by determined consumers and a responsive marketplace. Then in 1993, prompted by its own enforcement staff, the Commission voted to begin rulemaking to amend the standard. The Commission also issued a "stay of enforcement," a policy which allowed the sale of non-complying garments, which would meet the newly proposed standard for "snug-fitting" cotton garments during the rulemaking procedure. Following five years of comment and study, CPSC officially amended the old standard in March of this year. For the first time the government would allow the sale of 100% cotton garments for infants under nine months and "snug fitting" cotton sleepwear garments in sizes up to 14.
The rationale is that "snug fitting" pajamas show a lesser propensity to burn and that infants under the age of nine months do not have the mobility to become exposed to open flame.
Since consumers had definitely shown a preference for more comfortable cotton garments, manufacturers could now market these kinds of pajamas without violating the law, and without posing a risk to children.
But not everyone was convinced. When CPSC announced the new regulations, the "Safe Children's Sleepwear Coalition" announced it would oppose implementation of the relaxed standard, enlisting the support of two Members of Congress, Rep. Robert E. Andrews (D-N.J.) and Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.). Unable to attract enough support for legislation to roll back the CPSC action, Rep. DeLauro pressed to add language to the CPSC appropriations bill to direct CPSC to revoke the amendments and re-establish the 23-year-old standard.
Though her attempt failed in the House, and no such language was included in the Senate bill, DeLauro's efforts were partially successful in the joint House-Senate conference on the CPSC appropriations. Conferees adopted language directing the agency to issue, yet again, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) initiating proceedings to revoke the new standard and reinstitute the old standard. At the same time, Congress directed that the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct a study to determine whether the old rule should be restored, and directing that the results of that study be completed by April 1, 1999, and submitted concurrently to Congress and CPSC. The CPSC was also directed to act by July 1, 1999, and to make the GAO study part of any regulatory analysis of the effects of the rule.
Understandably, garment makers who had been marketing pajamas and other sleepwear made to meet the new standard, wonder what to do. So do parents looking to buy warm winter pajamas for their kids.
The issue, of course, is safety. Will the new standard, if allowed to stand, increase the risk of burn injuries to children? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lisa DOWNTOWN JOEY
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LOL Miracle...thanks for the reason! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric H
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 205
Location: NM Albuquerque
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Clearly the elephant in the living room here is your children's habit of smoking in bed. Get rid of that and I don't see why flame retardant PJs are that important. Get 'em off Joe Camel and get 'em hooked on lead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sewsneaky
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| All of my little ones jammies from BabyGap and Gymboree has this same yellow tag. They have been selling these with this tag for at least 9 years as that's how old my dd is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sarah Reid
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric, I have always wondered about the requirements for PJs and flammability. They're unlikely to spontaneously combust. They don't (to my knowledge) smoke in bed. If the entire house is on fire, are flame-resistant jammies really going to buy them enough time to make a difference? I wonder if anyone can point to an actual, real-life situation where a child's life was saved by flame-resistant jams? This is serious curiosity, not just ridicule of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esther
Moderator
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: ID Spudville
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's just another example of bureaucrats passing laws based on the emotionalism of the moment. I have always thought that about the sleepwear standards. If there is a fire, chemical laden sleepwear doesn't do a bit of good. Polyester is worse in a fire than cotton. Either way, an injury will result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
May McMann
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm surprised you found cotton flannel pj's at Target, all I found this season was 100% polyester flannel pj's. (which as noted above do not need to be treated)
I opted for Gymmies (100% cotton knit) for my little one and sized up to make up for the "snugger" fit that realistically wouldn't fit a musled child in the intended size range 
~May~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in
