Toxic Purses II – A Response to Those Who Have Written to Me With Questions

First of all, I would like to say, hello! Many of you have written making reference to a particular designer’s handbag/luggage products, and I have to admit that I not only share your interest in her designs but that she is actually my favorite designer.

That being said, I am pleased to report that these same warning labels have not been on my apparel purchases because they were not applicable to apparel. I mention this because I want you to understand that labels about products are specific to that type of article and are not necessarily a reflection across all product lines of a brand.

A warning label on a product also does not mean that all types of that product pose some “risk” and in the case of handbags, that will largely not be the situation. In terms of whether or not you want to keep or return your bag, that is an individual question that I cannot answer for you. After all, if the warning label is going to cause you to worry about an impending illness – whether or not it is true that one would result – then you probably don’t want to be preoccupied about something when you could just return it to the store.

On the other hand, when you know more about why the bag was subject to the label in the first place and factor in the frequency of your usage of the bag, you may not be worried about keeping it at all.

As I mentioned in my Toxic Purses? article, the label is a result of a law out of the State of California (CA) called Proposition 65.

California’s Prop 65 in its simplest terms requires a label where a product contains a chemical compound that exceeds what CA calls the “Safe Harbor Level.” Safe Harbor determinations are based on a person’s exposure to a chemical, assuming daily exposure at that level (not that CA has explained what type of daily usage would equate to the level of exposure that would warrant the label). In the case of a purse, that is likely to be daily exposure as compared to a piece of luggage which more typically has sporadic use.

Prop 65 requires businesses to warn people about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they make where that chemical is both (1) known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and (2) is listed on the “Prop 65 List.”

Here in the U.S. we have both federal, i.e., nationwide, laws as well as state law. I can tell you from counseling importer clients that ship products to retail stores located CA that it can seem like one is “importing” into CA due to all of the state-specific consumer product laws governing products sold within the state.

CA has a complex set of consumer product safety laws which, in large part, simply do not exist in other states. It’s arguable however, that without guidelines on product usage and exposure levels, they are useless.

So why is this label which is only required in CA ending up on products sold in the UK? Pure economics.

It is more cost effective to label merchandise at the production level, i.e., at the factory, so that it is compliant across all potential retail markets than to either forego a sale due to a lack of labeling, or cause a lag in sales time due to a need to relabel.

Therefore, some importers prefer to undergo testing and labeling overseas at the outset to both save money and deter potential future barriers to international trade.

Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com

Toxic Purses?

Earlier this week I saw a news piece on Headline News about toxics in handbags. It mentioned how over time as you get to love your handbag, i.e., the more it is worn, the greater the risk of releasing chemicals which were not on its surface thereby exposing yourself to them.

In an effort to reduce shopper concerns, retailers including Saks Fifth Ave., Target, TJMAXX, and many others, all agreed (according to Headline News) to not sell products with contaminants in them.

But how does a retailer actually prevent this? And given the nature of manufacturing in today’s modern world, how can exposure to toxics (which lie beneath the surface) over a certain amount of time be avoided?

At the federal level, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has regulations regarding maximum levels of certain chemicals, such as Lead and Pthalates in consumer products. CPSC has also found lead to not be naturally occurring in certain articles, like cotton.

On top of federal regulations, however, some states, like CA, have taken matters into their own hands when it comes to the protection of consumers. It has done this through a law that came out in the 1980s (and is gaining renewed momentum) called Proposition 65.

Proposition 65 requires businesses to warn people about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they make where that chemical is both (1) known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and (2) is listed on the “Prop 65 List.”

California’s Prop 65 in its simplest terms, requires a label where a product contains a chemical compound that exceeds the Safe Harbor Level. Safe Harbor determinations are based on a person’s exposure to a chemical, assuming daily exposure at that level.

The warning to consumers is typically done via the placement of a “warning label” directly onto the merchandise itself.

Retailers and importers therefore, need to test their products (typically done at the production level) for the existence of these chemicals and, if found, are subject to the label requirement.

As for which parts to test, merchandise is subject to testing for all parts to which a user may come into contact with, or otherwise be exposed to. Therefore, all outer and inner surface materials require testing.

With all of the recent buzz around the existence of chemicals in consumer products, namely with lead, phthalates and cadmium, I decided to look into the Proposition 65 rules regarding these 3 chemicals.

While stated in simple terms, there are technically several subdivisions of each of these chemicals, only a handful of which are on the Prop 65 List and therefore, subject to testing. They are:

5 Listed Phthalates:

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate) (DEHP)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP)
Di-n-hexyl phthalate (DnHP)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP)
Di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP)

4 Types of Lead:

Lead
Lead acetate
Lead phosphate
Lead subacetate

1 Type of Cadmium

Cadmium

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) provides a list of “Safe Harbor Levels,” of which there are 2 types (NSRLs and MADLs (defined below)). These levels are intended to assist in determining whether warnings are required on products for exposures to the listed chemicals because if those levels are exceeded, a label is required.

According to Susan Luong of the Prop 65 Office, however, they are not intended to provide a “maximum acceptable amount” of a chemical in a product (like how CPSCs regulations provide) because there is no established allowable concentration level for listed chemicals.

In my experience working with importers who want to be compliant with state and federal laws, having limits but declaring that they are not maximums is confusing. This is because in order to be compliant, there need to be straightforward rules so that those entities subject to penalties for not following them, understand what needs to be done and can add measures to their compliance programs as appropriate.

With more companies being the target of these laws due to greater consumer awareness, it is imperative that federal and state agencies give manufacturers, importers and retailers the information they need to be compliant.

NSRL ("No Significant Risk Levels" (NSRLs) for carcinogens)
MADL ("Maximum Allowable Dose Levels" (MADLs) for chemicals that cause reproductive toxicity)

Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com