Lead Law for Children's Protection revisited

In my 02/06/09 post I gave some information on the new Lead Law. Not much has changed since then but things have become clearer in regard to jewelry for children. I personally have decided not to make jewelry for children. The rules are hard to follow for a small business like I have.

I found the best information at the Rings and Things website. http://www.rings-things.com/jewelry-safety.html They explain the new law thus:

The shorthand version of the new law is this: Starting on February 10, 2009, manufacturers and sellers of children's jewelry (including crafters) will need to have an accredited laboratory test their jewelry and certify that it's within allowable lead limits. The first stage of the law allows an upper limit of 600PPM (parts per million) of lead. In August, 2009, the allowable amount of lead will drop to 300PPM, and in August 2011 it will drop again to 100PPM if the US government "determines this level to be feasible."

Fortunately, one of the changes provides a list some obvious items that need not be tested because they inherently do not contain lead. This was one of the problems before. These items are exempt.

* Precious gemstones: diamond, ruby, sapphire and emerald

* Semi-precious gemstones, "provided that the mineral or material is not based on lead or lead compounds and is not associated in nature with any mineral that is based on lead or lead compounds" (unacceptable stones include aragonite, bayldonite, boleite, cerussite, crocoite, linarite, mimetite, phosgenite, vanadinite & wulfenite).

* Natural or cultured pearls

* Wood

* Natural fibers such as cotton, silk, wool, hemp, flax and linen

* Other natural materials including coral, amber, feathers, fur and untreated leather.

"The Commission also 'preliminarily determines that the following metals and alloys do not exceed the 600 ppm or 300 ppm lead content limits under section 101(a) of the CPSIA provided that no lead or lead-containing metal is intentionally added':

* Surgical steel

* Precious metals: gold (at least 10 karat), sterling silver (at least 925/1000), platinum, palladium, rhodium, osmium, iridium and ruthenium"

One item that is not mentioned is Swarovski Crystals, a common jewelry component. It is the lead in the crystals that give them the desired sparkle. While it would seem that unless the crystal was pulverized and swallowed the lead would not be a problem. While that seems reasonable it has not been proven and therefore not exempt.

You can read more on the CPSC web site. It is very readable. (for a government web site ;-)

http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/smbus/manufacturers.html

Thanks to Rings and Things for condensing the information to an understandable and concise form.

B

PS The picture doesn't have anything to do with the post. Just a nice bracelet and earring set. And I can't get those beads anymore. Darn.

Lead Law for Children's Protection

One of my "Humorous" magnets

I spent over 2 hours surfing on the Internet to find out the latest on the new Federal Law concerning lead in children's products. I saw a post on Rena Klingenberg's Jewelry business blog and it reminded me of the lead in children's jewelry problem. The original post started in December 2007 and follows what has happened since. The latest contribution was by Russ Nobbs of Rings and Things, a very reputable jewelry component supplier. I buy lots of my components from them just because they are forthright about such things as lead in their products and they have good stuff.

The law is supposed to take effect on February 9, 2009. It effects jewelry and anything else, toys, clothing etc whether hand made or made by large manufacturers made for children under 12. This really effects many small crafters as each item must be tested for lead whether the components are even suspicious for containing lead or not. You can just imagine the effect of that on small businesses.

Crafters of children's toys got up in arms and did the petition, contact your lawmaker route and apparently had some effect.

Anyhow, Russ's post on Rena's blog explained that:

"Yesterday, Feb 2, 2009 the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a one year stay for the new regulations. The stay does NOT exempt “metal components of children’s metal jewelry (effective for products manufactured after March 23, 2009)” The text of the stay is at http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr09/stayenforce.pdf The CPSC website is http://www.cpsc.gov/


"I’m sure the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the Manufacturing Jewelers and Silversmiths of America (MJSA) and the other national organizations pressure along with comments from many of us influenced this stay. I’m sure the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the Manufacturing Jewelers and Silversmiths of America (MJSA) and the other national organizations pressure along with comments from many of us influenced this stay.

"The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted for the stay last week, after Congress was deluged with complaints from the broad range of industries affected by the law, including toys, apparel, and furniture. However, an exception to the stay was made for certain products, including children’s jewelry.

"As a result, third-party testing and certification will still be required for children’s jewelry products made after March 23, 2009. Those items must contain no more than 600 ppm (0.06 percent) lead content by weight. That threshold will drop to 300 ppm (0.03 percent) in August. The CPSC has until November to establish compliance protocols and testing for random samplings."

My response to this problem is

1) check with suppliers (such as Rings and Things) about the content of lead in their items -

Most are now listing any items that do have lead in them and

2) not market my jewelry to any one under 12.

Now that is not easy to do. What if someone asks me to make a 6 inch bracelet? Should I ask if it is for a child? Assume it is for a child? Ask if they will sue me if it is for a child?


I hope this post was helpful (Thanks to Rena Klinenberg and Russ Nobbs for the information included). Let me know what you think and consider checking out some of the links or doing some surfing yourself.


B

I need to make a disclaimer as part of my 2 hour Internet surfing was being able to find accurate and more importantly timely information. So, if I have things wrong, let me know but understand where I'm coming from.

PS I found this interesting NPR report this morning.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=100326124&m=100326101