From one of our industry publications:

Two lawmakers have introduced legislation aimed at easing the mandates of the recently enacted Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). The new bill, named the Consumer Product Safety Solutions Act of 2009, would allow manufacturers and regulators greater leeway in implementing testing, granting exemptions and creating labeling standards on children’s products. “The original bill is devastating small businesses,” says Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who helped author the new act.

The proposed legislation suggests several amendments to the current law. First, the bill would permit manufacturers to “sell-through” inventory for one year after the lead limits go into effect. Children’s products made after February 10, 2009 would have to meet a 600 parts per million (ppm) standard, while those made after August 15, 2010 would have to meet a 300 ppm standard.

In addition, the bill would allow for component part testing, eliminating the need for third party testing if components are previously certified to meet permissible lead and phthalate levels. Also, the bill creates broader exemption authority for labeling, a significant issue for industry companies.

“This is a difficult question for the promotional products industry,” says Jeff Lederer, vice president of Prime Line, who recently met with government regulators. “In our presentation, we emphasized that the industry strongly supports the objective of tracking labels. That said, many of our products are too small to label under the current requirements of CPSIA and the tracking label has the potential of de-emphasizing our customer’s logo and message. So, we strongly support any revision to CPSIA that will give CPSC the latitude to make labeling rules.”

Designed to improve the safety of children’s products, the CPSIA has drawn sharp criticism for its tight regulations and potential impracticalities. In granting a limited one-year legislative stay in February, regulators said the law was creating “chaos” for small businesses, prompting attempts to change the CPSIA. “Any law that provides an additional level of flexibility is going to be helpful,” says Jonathan Isaacson, president of Gemline. “The original law was poorly conceived with unintended consequences.”

An update from one of our industry newsletters concerning upcoming regulations and product safety: 

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has voted to grant a limited one-year stay on legislation meant to tightly regulate the manufacturing of children’s toys and other items. Concerned that the law was creating “chaos” for small businesses, the CPSC expects the reprieve to allow time for rules to be more clearly defined and exemptions to be granted.

“The action we are taking puts in place a limited ‘time-out’ so that the Commission and Congress can address the issues with the law that have become so painfully apparent,” says Nancy Nord, acting chairman of the CPSC. “The stay will give the CPSC time to develop and issue rules defining responsibilities of manufacturers, importers, retailers and testing labs.”

If the CPSC had not granted a stay, a segment of the legislation would have gone into effect next Tuesday. Passed with near unanimous congressional support last August, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is designed to require mandatory testing of any items that might be used by children. The testing and subsequent certification process would ensure children’s products and the materials used to make those products are safe. The CPSIA applies to a broad range of items, including apparel, toys, books and sports gear, but is saddled with gray areas. “I think the stay is a good thing so we can truly understand how the law affects our industry,” says David Nicholson, president of Leed’s (asi/66887). “There are some areas that are unclear, so this is a positive step just for the sake of clarification.”

Some suppliers, though, believe the enforcement delay might create unintended problems. “I’m concerned that this stay is only making things more confusing,” says Jeff Lederer, executive vice president of Prime Line (asi/79530). “If you don’t test, how are you going to know if you’re in compliance? Top suppliers in the industry are already complying.”

Not included in the reprieve – which is focused on testing and certification of products – is a ban on lead in paint, new limits on lead in jewelry and approved standards for cribs and pacifiers. The stay is expected to be lifted on February 10, 2010. For more information on the legislation and the one-year delay to some of its components, visit the CPSC Web site at www.cpsc.gov.

Despite criticism from health advocates and its own science advisory board, the Food and Drug Administration announced last week that it is not changing its decision that bisphenol A (BPA) is safe in trace amounts. The organization did reveal, however, that it will study the cumulative effects of BPA in humans, though it gave no timetable for such findings.

The non-change, released in a letter from the organization, comes in response to the November conclusion by its science board (comprised of outside experts) that the FDA’s original finding was flawed. The board said the FDA erroneously relied solely on industry-funded data and studies that didn’t evaluate newborns, for example. The board also said the FDA was neglecting the cumulative effect of BPA exposures from multiple sources, something which the FDA is addressing with its recent announcement.

BPA, commonly found in reusable plastic water bottles, baby bottles and the linings of metal cans, has come under repeated attacks by new studies and health groups linking it to diseases and development problems in humans. Recently, president-elect Barack Obama met with a coalition of health advocates who are pushing for a ban of BPA. Many of those same advocates are displeased with the FDA’s latest decision. “More years of research by the FDA to determine what thousands of scientists worldwide already know about the toxic chemical is a waste of time, taxpayer dollars, and will place millions of babies yet to be born at risk,” said Alex Formuzis, a spokesman for the Environmental Working Group, to the Washington Post.

The following was sent to us in an industry announcement earlier today:

In the back-and-forth ping pong match that is the battle over bisphenol A (BPA), the forces leery over the possibly dangerous chemical have just fired back. On Friday, a science advisory board to the Food and Drug Administration endorsed a subcommittee report that concluded the FDA’s August pronouncement of BPA’s safety was flawed. Reads the report: “[The information] provides a sufficient scientific basis to conclude that the Margins of Safety defined by FDA as ‘adequate’ are, in fact, inadequate.”

Through its decision, the science board (a group of outside experts), said that the FDA was wrong to base its decision solely on industry-funded studies – in the process ignoring other research with more damaging conclusions. The FDA declared three months ago that BPA (commonly found in reusable plastic water bottles, baby bottles and the linings of metal cans) was safe in trace amounts. But since then, BPA has come under repeated attacks. A September study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association linked it to heart disease and diabetes. Another study last month by the National Toxicology Program suggested that BPA exposure to expecting mothers may cause alterations in brain, prostate gland and behavioral development in fetuses and children.

The report, penned by a subcommittee on Wednesday before it was brought to light Friday, charges the FDA with using old data, employing studies that weren’t designed to study newborns and not taking into account the cumulative effect of BPA exposures from multiple sources. “It is the judgment of the Subcommittee,” pronounces the report on that last charge, “that lack of consideration of the totality of exposures from other sources severely limits the usefulness of the safety assessment.”

In a statement Wednesday, the FDA stood by its initial decision over the safety of BPA: “Current levels of exposure to BPA through food packaging do not pose an immediate health risk to the general population, including infants and babies.” However, FDA director Andrew von Eschenbach has stated the agency will revisit its decision in light of last week’s ruling.

We have been waiting on some more definitive word from the FDA regarding the safety of BPA. And this last week the FDA has again stated that BPA is safe. Several articles are available online. Here’s one of many:

The Washington Post.

As a response to consumer concern, Nalgene has changed their product line so that their bottles are now made from the same BPA-free material that the Camelbak bottles are made from. Stock has been limited, but production now seems to be catching up with demand. Due to product safety concerns, we have also seen a dramatic shift towards our Aluminum Sports Bottles, which are now very difficult to keep in stock. Stock availability has been fluctuating almost daily.

Everytime I turn around I find a new article on BPA and polycarbonate bottles. This last Friday we were interviewed by KSNT NBC TV-27 out of Topeka:

http://www.ksnt.com/news/local/18195329.html

The Pitch, which is the weekly alternative publication from Kansas City, ran a cover story on BPA in their April 24-30 issue. Primarily the article covered interview’s with University of Missouri professors and researchers Frederick vom Saal, Wade Welsons and Susan Nagel. I would have preferred if The Pitch had made a stronger effort to cover both sides of this story. I did find this passage somewhat amusing: (more…)

It has been widely reported that Canada intends to ban the import and sale of plastic polycarbonate baby bottles. Just do a Google search and you’ll find plenty of media outlets following up with similar reports as this one on MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24200546/

Although Nalgene sport bottles are often cited in the media coverage, most of the research being conducted is focused on BPA’s impact on newborns and infants up to 18 months of age.

These stories are based on the suggestions from Health Canada, the Federal department responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health. But as usual, there is more to the story than what our media portrays. Here’s what Health Canada said:

“Canada is the first country in the world to complete a risk assessment of bisphenol A in consultation with industry and other stakeholders, and to initiate a 60 day public comment period on whether to ban the importation, sale and advertising of polycarbonate baby bottles which contain bisphenol A.”

And later in the same press release:

“It was determined that the main source of exposure for newborns and infants is through the use of polycarbonate baby bottles when they are exposed to high temperatures and the migration of bisphenol A from cans into infant formula. The scientists concluded in this assessment that bisphenol A exposure to newborns and infants is below levels that may pose a risk, however, the gap between exposure and effect is not large enough.”

And finally:

“To be prudent, the Government of Canada is proposing to reduce bisphenol A exposure in infants and newborns by proposing a number of actions: to ban polycarbonate baby bottles; to develop stringent migration targets for bisphenol A in infant formula cans; to work with industry to develop alternative food packaging and develop a code of practice; and to list bisphenol A under Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.”

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/2008/2008_59_e.html

This is far from the condemnation of B.P.A. that was widely reported by the press. Canada is certainly one of the most proactive countries when it comes to research and consumer protection. But their own conclusions are that the levels of exposure to newborns are below those that pose a risk.

Product safety is incredibly important to us, and we do everything we can to offer only the safest products available. We’ve been attending seminars and discussing issues related to product safety and promotional products with our industry suppliers and leaders. The more that we understand about our products, the better job we can do of choosing the best products to offer on our site.

Well, this appears to be the perfect time to kick off a new Product Safety section of the Absorbent, Ink. blog. With the recent press coverage of Bisphenol-A (BPA) and Nalgene Polycarbonate Bottles, our Client Services Department has already been answering a handful of related questions from our customers.

It’s always interesting to watch a story take on a life of its own. Despite the fact that agencies such as the FDA, EPA and the European Union have repeatedly researched and investigated Bisphenol-A, and have approved of its use, on April 9th, the Today Show featured a story expressing concerns about the use of BPA in plastics. Unfortunately NBC’s coverage was less than totally accurate as discussed here by the American Chemistry Council:

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_news_article.asp?CID=206&DID=7226

But this isn’t a new story. This has been bubbling around for a few years. California had been considering a ban on certain substances including Bisphenol-A in 2005 with Assembly Bill Number 319. Here’s an article from the Canada Free Press concerning the science behind the reports at that time:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/milloy042505.htm

California ended up removing Bisphenol-A from their legislation, as did Maryland and Minnesota, who were considering similar legislation:

http://www.bisphenol-a.org/whatsNew/20060412.html

Yesterday, the American Chemistry Council sent a letter to the FDA asking them to clarify and update their position on BPA in order to help alleviate consumer concerns:

“An updated review of bisphenol A in food contact applications, led by the premier food safety agency in the United States - the FDA - will help explain the extensive scientific review that has already been conducted on this compound. And this review will allow the agency to issue the most recent evaluation of all the science, and all agency reviews to date, quickly and in a way that is understandable to the public. We believe that an update by FDA, accompanied by a clear communication from the agency about what the science means, is needed, and ask FDA to move forward promptly with this review. It is important that FDA move as quickly as possible to undertake this review, since the results, regardless of outcome will help better inform the public.”

http://www.factsonplastic.com/acc-calls-on-fda-to-update-review-of-bisphenol-a/

The plastic industry’s position has been consistent: Bisphenol-A has been well tested and has repeatedly been shown to be safe by virtually every major institution that has researched this issue:

http://www.bisphenol-a.org/human/polyplastics.html

Today MSNBC has reported that Nalgene will be changing their popular line of polycarbonate sports bottles to a new BPA-free material:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24200402/

The story reads as if Nalgene is recalling their products. They are not. Once again, less-than-stellar journalism has raised consumer fears. Nalgene is doing what other smart businesses have done for years: responding to customer concerns. We have been in contact with Nalgene, and we have been told that they will soon be making their popular sport bottles out of a BPA-free material called Tritan copolyester. This happens to be the same material that Camelbak uses for their bottles.

For more information directly from Nalgene and their plans to phase out their line of polycarbonate bottles:

http://www.nalgene-outdoor.com/

Even Camelbak, who has already been producing BPA-free products, was affected by this recent uproar. Since the Today Show misidentified all #7 plastics as containing BPA, Camelbak will be removing the #7 from the bottom of their bottles.

http://www.camelbak.com/index.cfm

This reaction from Nalgene and Camelbak has reminded me of the time Mars stopped making red M&Ms. From Wikipedia:

“The red candies were eliminated in 1976 due to health concerns over the dye amaranth (FD&C Red #2), which was a suspected carcinogen, and were replaced with orange-colored candies. Despite the fact that M&M’s did not contain the dye, red M&M’s were removed to satisfy worried consumers. By 1987, the public had forgotten the scare, and the red candies were reintroduced, but they also kept the orange colored M&M’s.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M&M’s

On a related note, we have recently added the BPA-free Camelbak bottles to our line of sport bottles:

http://www.absorbentprinting.com/drinkware/sport-bottles

We will continue to monitor research on Bisphenol-A. We’re certainly not scientists, so we rely on common sense and the best information available by the scientific community at large. At this time we will continue to offer products that may contain small levels of BPA. We will also continue to research and add more BPA-free versions of our sport bottles for concerned consumers.

Dear Santa.

How are you? I know that you and the elves are busy, but we’ve had some
difficulties tracking down a Wii for our kids. If you or the elves are able
to track one down for me, I’d be much obliged. I’ll even leave you some
extra Oreos this year.

And by the way, our kids are concerned that you won’t be able to find the
tree this year as it’s not right next to the fireplace. Once you come down
the chimney take a left into the sun room. You can’t miss it.

But that’s for the kids. Here’s my wish list for Christmas.

1. Our industry is facing an interesting challenge. Lead. It seems to be
everywhere. Certainly it’s everywhere in the news. Please help our industry
develop some clear cut guidelines concerning lead. And please help our
government agencies to develop ONE standard test so that we can get
consistent information across the board. We will be asking our suppliers to
provide us with documentation concerning their products, imprinting
techniques and testing procedures.

2. We need more green. And I don’t mean money. Though that would be nice
too. Our customers are wanting more eco-friendly products. And luckily our
suppliers seem to be stepping up to this challenge, slowly but surely. But
it would be really nice if our industry could develop some standards for
what is considered “green”. And if our suppliers could more easily supply us
with information concerning recycled content and a product’s ability to be
recycled.

3. Globalization is here to stay. And I understand the many benefits
including better pricing for our products for our customers. But we still
have a number of customers who would prefer to “buy American”. Plus when we
face certain challenges within our industry (see number one above), other
countries do not always play by the same set of rules. We need our suppliers
to be more transparent with their products. We need to know when products
are imported. And we especially need to know when products are imprinted
outside of our country.

Thank you and safe travels this holiday season. And I was just kidding about
the Oreos. You know that I always leave you plenty of Oreos and a Diet Coke.

Sincerely,

Lee Eldridge
Absorbent, Ink.

The promotional products industry topped $18 billion in sales in 2006. As one of the larger promotional products distributors in the country, Absorbent, Ink. takes the welfare of our customers very seriously. We strive to work with environmentally conscious suppliers who manufacture and produce the safest products in the industry, and have been very pleased to see our industry take our environmental concerns seriously.

A recent article titled “Recalls have Parents on Alert,” by Kevin Rader of WTHR.com said Mattel recalled a toy jeep that contained lead paint. “The jeep was a promotional product marketed from the movie cars. Lead paint has been banned in this country since 1978 but it is still produced in China,” wrote Rader.

The promotional products industry topped $18 billion in sales in 2006. As one of the larger promotional products distributors in the country, Absorbent, Ink. takes the welfare of our customers very seriously. We strive to work with environmentally conscious suppliers who manufacture and produce the safest products in the industry, and have been very pleased to see our industry take our environmental concerns seriously.

A recent article titled “Recalls have Parents on Alert,” by Kevin Rader of WTHR.com said Mattel recalled a toy jeep that contained lead paint. “The jeep was a promotional product marketed from the movie cars. Lead paint has been banned in this country since 1978 but it is still produced in China,” wrote Rader.

A press release from Mattel on Aug. 15, 2007, stated the company voluntarily recalled the toy because the paint on the die-cast vehicle had “impermissible levels of lead.” This recall caused Mattel to change the way it regulates and checks for lead in paint.

Promotional products are supposed to leave a good impression in clients’ minds, not leave them worrying if they purchased an item that could be potentially dangerous.

Although ink containing a low level of lead is not banned by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, suppliers in our industry have been experimenting with inks, such as soy-based and zinc-based, to replace those with trace amounts of lead. The challenges these inks present are a lack of gloss, less resistance to scratches, and less dishwasher durability. Imprinting with these inks sometimes leaves customers unhappy with the end result, but are potentially safer for society.

One state that has gone above and beyond to protect people from potential harm is California. The CPSC has standards and guidelines with products containing lead paint and heavy metals. California, however, has set its own guidelines.

California’s guidelines are outlined in The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65. Proposition 65 is more stringent than the CPSC regulations require. It requires companies to put warning labels on products with paint or ink containing miniscule amounts of lead. There still remains debate on whether Prop 65 is necessary or not, but we are happy to comply with these regulations

State governments are not the only ones tightening production guidelines; some companies are as well. Sabina, a major decorator of ceramic, glass, and polycarabonate drinkware, is one of many printers that have honored Proposition 65. For products designated for use or shipment into California, Sabina offers California approved warning labels indicating that the product contains low concentrations of lead or cadium. As well, Sabina offers a complete color palate of non-lead inks for imprinting on these items.

Keeping people safe is an important priority and we are relieved to see that companies in our industry go above and beyond in meeting federal regulations.