DUPLICATE // New lead law worries jewelers

Gaping uncertainties in the rules and regulations of a new federal law designed to improve protection of children from lead poisoning have jewelry manufacturers across the nation, including Cumberland’s Alan R. Green, worried about liability and the extra cost of compliance, questions that may not be answered until months after the law takes effect in February.
Existing law allows an exemption for rhinestones, which Green, who acquired Argo Products Inc. in Johnston three years ago, said are about 30 percent lead, but the new law does not. Without that exemption, “I will shut down, I would have no choice,” Green said. “I’ll lose 70 to 80 percent of my sales.”
Other manufacturers have similar concerns about the new law’s effects, according to representatives of two national trade associations, the Manufacturing Jewelers & Suppliers of America (MJSA), based in Providence, and the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association (FJTA), based in North Kingstown.
“All of our members are worried about the added cost [of the new law], as well as liability if they are found in violation willingly or accidentally,” said Gerry Davies, managing editor of the MJSA Journal, a trade publication sponsored by the MJSA. The MJSA represents approximately 1,800 companies nationwide, ranging from large manufacturers such as Tiffany & Co. to one- or two-person outfits, Davies said.
“The issue is, not the law, but how much there is [still] to be decided,” Davies told Providence Business News. “It could be disastrous, depending on what the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) does, and the uncertainty bears its own cost.”
Signed into law by President Bush in August, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) lowers the amount of lead that will be allowed in any product made for children 12 years old and under, including jewelry, toys and clothes. The limit drops to 600 parts per million (ppm) next month, 300 ppm in August 2009 and, if technologically feasible, 100 ppm in August 2011.
The law requires importers and domestic manufacturers of children’s products to have their products tested by an authorized third-party laboratory for lead content, with the results certified in writing. But the law does not specify such crucial details as: what type of test must be done and how often; whether one piece or a whole batch must be tested; what happens to adult products often given to children, particularly jewelry such as gold chains or crosses; and if tests must be done again when a design or manufacturing change creates a new product.
These are precisely the kinds of questions that the CPSC will answer in the months ahead. If the law is “rigidly applied,” Davies suggested, it could create trouble for some jewelry makers “especially in this economy.” In a letter to members, the MJSA said, “some degree of pain, however, is unavoidable” because the new law “will cost companies time, money and labor, no matter what the CPSC does.”
Green is one of the manufacturers caught in the uncertainty. Working with subcontractors, his company makes children’s jewelry for sale to wholesalers across the country, shipping approximately 250,000 children’s rings per year, for example.
He understands that the law is designed to protect children who might swallow a lead-contaminated object, but tests have proven that a swallowed rhinestone would be “inert” and “pass through the kid with no harm,” he said.
The FJTA, which represents about 2,500 costume jewelry makers across the world, is “very actively” pursuing a rhinestone exemption, according to Michael Gale, president. He said the trade group is in the process of petitioning the CPSC for such an exception and is working with Swarovski North America Ltd., based in Cranston, on this issue. Swarovski, famous for its crystals, also carries a rhinestone product line. A Swarovski representative did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Meanwhile, Green wonders if a rhinestone exemption will be granted in time to save his business. The new law lowers the lead limit to 600 ppm, mandatory as of Feb. 10. After that date, it will be illegal to sell any children’s product that contains more lead than the allowed limit. That’s an effective ban on the sale of rhinestones to children 12 and under. “As of Feb. 10, as the law stands now without an exception for rhinestones, most of my product line will be illegal,” Green said.
The CPSC, in an update on its Web site (www.cpsc.gov) dated Jan. 8, issued a clarification to make it clear that the ban will affect manufacturers, importers and retailers of all children’s products, not just jewelry. Items of all kinds now on store shelves or in inventories can no longer be sold after Feb. 10. Sellers of used children’s products, such as consignment and thrift stores, are not required to test and certify lead content, but are urged to avoid the sale of products that might exceed the 600 ppm limit because penalties could still apply.
Although the lower lead limits take effect Feb. 10, the new law does not require third-party testing of children’s products until March 12, and the CPSC has until November to promulgate specific rules and regulations for the tests. That leaves a gap of about eight months “without actual rules for testing,” Davies observed. “Companies will have to go with their best guess on what is appropriate.”
Davies expects that the CPSC will require an “acid extraction test,” which replicates the digestive process, and he estimated as “a ballpark figure” that the cost for the jewelry industry would be $17 to $20 per sample. The CPSC probably won’t require the testing of every piece of children’s jewelry, Davies said, but tests per batch or production run. Green said he now spends more than 1 percent of his total sales revenue on lead testing.
The top priority for MJSA, which represents the makers of fine jewelry, is to obtain an exemption for precious metals, such as gold, silver and platinum, according to Davies. Scientific tests have shown no lead risk in precious metals, the MJSA said. The CPSC in-house staff has issued a recommendation in favor of an exemption, according to the commission’s Web site (www.cpsc.gov), but the CPSC has not issued a ruling yet. The CPSC did not immediately return a call seeking comment on possible exemptions and the status of the Feb. 10 ban.
The maximum civil penalties that the CPSC can assess under the new law are $100,000 for a violation and $15 million for a series of related violations.
The law stems in large part from the influx of lead-contaminated toys and products into the United States from China and other foreign countries. Although he said just about every children’s product recalled came from a foreign country, Davies noted that no one in the jewelry industry disputes the need for strong regulation of lead in children’s products. Green doesn’t blame China either. “Those same mistakes can happen here,” he said. “I’ll tell you, it’s a good time to own a lead-testing laboratory.” •