Kidswear has long been a generous source for revenue and opportunity for the decorating community. From school and athletic uniforms for peewee sports leagues to sized-down complements to corporate promotions, children’s apparel has been an ever-present force in the industry.

While safety regulations for this segment have always been present—and rightfully so, protecting children against choking, strangulation, fire hazards and the like—recent legislative efforts have many decorators confused about what they can and can’t, should and shouldn’t do in regard to embellishing children’s wear. These new regulations may result in larger reform than simply removing drawstrings, as we’ve seen in the past.

CPSIA and you

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is a federal regulatory committee that was developed in the 70’s to protect the public from serious risks from a variety of consumer products. The committee has the authority to enforce the rules outlined in its Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) that effect hundreds of different industries from electronics to dental supply and nearly everything in between. Of recent note, CPSC took a critical look at children’s toys that were available to U.S. youth and sought policies that would protect children from some of the toxins found in some of the products.

As such, most of the stricter regulations outlined in CPSIA are applicable only to toys, but apparel is also under scrutiny. In order to understand how the vast mandates apply directly to our industry, Marci Kinter, SGIA, presented an informative webinar on the subject and continues to provide educational resources speaking to the hot topic as the legislation evolves. She defines two separate and distinct issues that pertain to the decorated-apparel industry: The lead content of products and the phthalate ban for children’s products.

“Anything that we make and sell,” Kinter explains, “that is intended for use by a child under the age of 12 including hair bows, T-shirts, sweaters, socks, and so on are included in the lead limits.” The limits on the amount of lead, she goes on to explain, are phased over three years—the allowable lead content for the first year cannot exceed 600 parts per million (ppm), it goes down to 300 ppm and will finally require less than 100 ppm in a finished good.

The keyword is finished. The CPSC looks at the entire product—from the blank substrate and all its components such as zippers, buttons and the like plus any embellishment that is on the garment—when determining whether or not a product meets the requirements. Further, it is on the onus of the end seller, in our case, the decorators to certify the product.

What this means for decorators is the need to obtain this information from all suppliers—of the kidswear, the inks if the garments will be screen or direct printed, the heat transfer if heat pressed and even the thread and backing if embroidered. Mindy Anastos, L.A. T Sportswear, comments that most manufacturers have completed their testing and certification at this time… even though CPSC has issued a stay (postponement) on enforcement on the testing and certification requirements. Note that the lead and phthalate content limits (discussed later) will still need to be met, as the stay only applies to testing and certification.

Confusing? That’s the main criticism of the Act. According to www.cpsc.gov, all businesses “must still be sure that their products conform to all safety standards and similar requirements, including the lead and phthalates provisions of the CPSIA.” The obvious contradiction, as Anastos points out: “How will they know if they meet the new standards if they don’t test the products?” 

Essentially, this is why Kinter is not recommending that decorators spend money on seeking testing and certification processes at this point. Instead, “Decorators must be educated so they’re ready to ask the right questions of their suppliers,” says SanMar’s Lee Strom, “and suppliers need to be ready to provide all the information a decorator needs to be confident that they are working with CPSIA-compliant products.”

It is also important to know that SGIA is working with legislators to seek exemptions for certain products commonplace to our industry that are known not to contain lead. Likewise, the Association is working with textile ink manufactures to secure exemptions from the lead content testing provisions. If successful, this will eliminate the costly need to test these products. (The legislation is being introduced by Senator Jim DeMint in the S. 374 Consumer Product Safety Reform Bill offered as an amendment to the economic stimulus package.)

The other regulation in the act that pertains to our industry, though to a lesser extent than the lead limits, is the phthalate ban on certain children’s products that contain more than 0.1 percent of six listed phthalates—DEHP, DBP, DINP, BBP, DIDP, and DnOPA. According to Kinter, this applies mostly to toys, but also to child care articles—products defined as those that facilitate sleeping and eating—and not to children’s apparel in general. This also only applies to these products that are intended for the use by children under the age of three, versus the wider net for the lead limits.

While the CPSC does not consider apparel to be a children’s toy, not all apparel items are exempt. Mainly, this will pertain to blankets, sleepwear and bibs for the decorated apparel industry, Kinter points out.

Market implications

So what does this all mean for the market for kidswear? “Since much of the media attention has focused on the impact to the toy industry, many end-users may still be unaware of these new laws and their ramifications in regards to apparel,” says Strom. “However, as apparel suppliers, we need to be ready and able to answer all questions that come up.”

Anastos says that the skepticism of toy safety may actually help to boost interest in children’s apparel. “With the recalls and problems in the toy market, many companies feel much more comfortable using clothing as a marketing tool to stay current with regulations. The market is still strong. Kids need clothes and clothing currently is a low-cost promotional item, perfect for a slow economy.”

In terms of style concessions, the regulations will have more of an effect on the embellishing side rather than seeing drastic changes in kids’ apparel. Anastos points out that you may notice small differences—citing the shift from painted zipper pulls to metal to decrease the chance that lead might be in the paint of the zipper—but the bigger difference you will notice is in the information provided by suppliers about the content of their products.

To that end, “Distributors will choose to work with suppliers who can provide the desired styles and ensure those styles are compliant with the CPSIA,” says Strom. “The overall industry message needs to be that while these regulations affect our industry, we can be ready. The resources are out there, and we can all get educated on the requirements.”

As new information is presented about the composition of the substances the public is exposed to, it is responsible to reevaluate our manufacturing approach accordingly. Whether or not this critical look at the substances used for the products in our industry yields necessary reform, and whether or not certain processes and products are ultimately excluded from the regulations, the lesson in this legislative conundrum is to be knowledgeable and responsible about what you are selling. Especially if it is intended for children.