CPSIA Testing Data Requested
By Adam Dewitz on April 13th, 2009
The Printing Industries of America is requesting CPSC testing data from printers to help them with their efforts to have printed products exempted from the lead and phthalate testing and certification requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is close to issuing a determination that would permanently exclude “ordinary” children’s books and other printed materials from the Act’s lead testing and certification requirements. These requirements are now temporarily delayed from taking effect until February 10, 2010. Printing Industries of America has been working closely with the Association of American Publishers to supply raw material and finished product testing data on “ordinary” children’s books. This data will support the CPSC’s permanent exclusion for “ordinary” children’s books but may fall short for “other printed material” unless additional testing data is provided to the CPSC.
What Testing Data Is Needed?
To issue a permanent exclusion for “other printed material” the CPSC needs testing data that demonstrates that the lead and phthalates in these products are below the Act’s limits.
What is Meant by “Other Printed Material”?
The Printing Industries’ needs data on everything that isn’t an “ordinary” book, including, but not limited to: paper doll books, sticker books, flashcards, posters, inserts, greeting cards, decals, playing cards, cardboard cutouts, etc.
Company that are willing to share testing data should contact Gary Jones, Printing Industries’ Director, EHS Affairs, at (email hidden address not shown).
For more information on CPSIA and Print see:
- PIA’s CPSIA Resource Page
- PIM’s CPSIA Resource Page
- R.R. Donnelley Overview of the Book Assembly Process for the CPSC.
- Association of American Publishers CPSIA page.
Main Content Feed
4 Responses to “CPSIA Testing Data Requested”
By Patrick Berger on Apr 13, 2009 | Reply
This is serious. Be very careful with this kind data. It can work both ways.
By Patrick Berger on Apr 14, 2009 | Reply
With the many different types of manufacturing that can be used to produce these products the data presented must be very specific as to the manufacturing method and procedures used.
Be very careful some methods of manufacturing could be excluded or banned from producing these products.
Requiring Coneg certification of all products used in the manufacturing process could be just the beginning.
By Bob Raus on Apr 22, 2009 | Reply
Forgive me for asking an seemingly obvious question, but why would we WANT to exclude children’s books, paper dolls, flash cards, posters, etc. from lead testing standards? We all know babies and young kids put EVERYTHING in their mouths (right)?
The health issues caused from lead are serious and well documented. My concern stems from uncontrolled and unregulated manufacturing practices in emerging markets. How many people did NOT buy toys made in China last Christmas? I know I looked at the labels because I didn’t want to take any chances with my family and friends.
What happens if (when) there is an issue with printed children’s books that someday are discovered to contain lead (or worse)? Will there be a boycott on printed children’s books? Could this foster faster movement of printed data to the web?
By Patrick Berger on Apr 23, 2009 | Reply
Bob you are absolutely right.
Looking for ways to exclude something is usually a lobbying groups method to keep their paying members.
There is no need for any exclusion of any kind. There is technology currently available that meets the criteria of the CPSC.
It is cost effective or should I say cost the same or less to implement.
Keep the data to yourself it is your competitive advantage. Sharing the data does nothing except show your competitors what you have accomplished.