Clothing Importers Protest Retroactive Lead Testing
February 5, 2009

Reported by Sergey Kadinsky

Produced and filmed by Geneva Sands-Sadowitz

This story takes place in the Garment District of Manhattan, where children's clothing importers and wholesalers gathered to protest new federal lead testing rules.

Industry figures interviewed include Steve Levy, Gila Goodman, and Seth Hanson.

Here is the text version of the story:

Children’s clothing importers and manufacturers are heading to Washington today to lobby Congress against a law mandating lead inspection of all children’s products, set to take effect on Feb. 10. Industry leaders argue that the stringent testing is unnecessary and will cost the city thousands of jobs.

“People will lose their jobs from the testing costs,” said Jack Maleh, an executive of clothing wholesaler Children’s Apparel Network. “The products were safe for all these years, and they’re still safe.”

Enacted in the midst of a massive toy recall, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, mandates testing of each separate component of a cloth. The part of the law that industry leaders strongly oppose is its retroactive application, where clothing once deemed safe would either be tested or thrown to the landfills.

“We’ve always been committed to making safe products,” said David Baron, a consultant for Supply Chain at Kahn, Lucas, Lancaster. “Retroactive application has turned safe clothes into unsafe clothes.”

The testing requirement and retroactive application would force businesses to return more than $500 million worth of products, a costly burden in a struggling economy. Importers warn that the massive recall would result not only in job losses, but also bankruptcy.

“As many as 50 businesses could go bankrupt,” said Gila Goodman, the president of Success Apparel. “In this economic environment, it doesn’t make sense.” When asked to clarify, Goodman said that she was referring to local businesses.

While the law passed Congress without any opposition, Goodman believes that its high cost is an unintended consequence. In late November 2008, some 150 children’s clothing businesses formed the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Childrenswear, aimed at promoting a “common sense” regulatory approach towards product safety testing.

Bombarded by letters from children’s clothing workers and executives, some lawmakers have expressed regrets about the law, and urged the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) to delay the deadline by six months, and eliminate the retroactive provision.

In a letter to CPSC acting head Nancy Ford, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn) described the retroactive testing as “costly, duplicative, and unnecessary.” Weiner also noted that even a plain white t-shirt would have to be pulled form the shelves for lead testing. In response, Rep. Jim Demint (R-SC) drafted a bill to repeal the retroactive provision. Consultant Seth Hanson works with a number of local wholesalers, and recalls an example of the law’s “unintended consequences.”

“Because of the ramifications of this bill, we’ve had to change the buttons on a half a million shirts,” said Hanson. “The company was then sold, costing 100 jobs.”

Hanson argued that under the current lead standard, it would take plenty of effort to become poisoned.

“If you were going to get lead poisoning, you would have to ingest a button every day for about 30 years and then you might have a problem.”