Time to Take a Closer Look at the Test Reports in Your Files

November 14, 2011 ~ Rick Brenner ~ Leave a comment

With the deadline for mandatory third party lead testing less than two months away, now would be a very good time to take a closer look at the third-party test reports in your files. There’s a good chance that upon closer inspection you might find that for certain products the reports you’re relying on for compliance might not be very reliable.

In the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), Congress mandated that an accredited third party laboratory must test children’s products before they can be distributed in commerce. Testing for lead in paint or surface coating has been required since December of 2008. Testing for lead in substrate will take effect on January 1, 2012.

So what are the reliability concerns I’m raising?

While some question the accuracy of the tests – by showing inconsistent results from one lab to the next—that isn’t the issue I see. My concern is more serious—that some of the test reports you receive may not even be for the same product that you’re selling. In those cases, the reports are not reliable and provide a false sense of security to you and to your customers.

Here’s one way that happens: Instead of ordering tests for their own products, U.S. importers often turn to their overseas factories for testing. But some of these factories—particularly ones that supply similar versions of their products to multiple customers in the US—may try to mitigate the cost by testing only a small subset of their products—sometimes only one SKU out of a varied line of products. Instead of testing the actual products as produced for each of their customers, they send a generic version of their product to a lab and then they give these test results to every customer who requests a test report. I’ve seen tests like this more times than I can count.

So what’s the problem with this practice?

Well, there’s no problem with a U.S. importer having their overseas factory order the testing from an accredited lab as long as the tested version of the product is exactly the same in all material respects as the product they’re selling—same item, same finish, same color, same trim, same design, same paint and substrate materials, same raw material supplier, and the same factory. But that’s often not the case.

The more common scenario is that the generic version is similar but different from your product. It might be a different material or color, have different trim details or include additional features from the generic version. Any of these differences requires a separate third party test.

Another possibility is that the report you have is for a completely different product from yours. Overseas factories don’t always test every product they produce. I’ve seen cases where a factory will respond to a test request by sending any report they have in their files. Unless the US firm receiving the report is trained in what to look for, these reports are often accepted as is and passed along to customers.

So how can you tell if your report is really for your product?

Is the product named in the report exactly the same way as it is listed on the web or in the catalog where you found it? If your product is a Bonzo HT-341 in midnight blue, does the test report say Bonzo HT-341 in midnight blue? Be wary of reports with generic product descriptions like “Plastic Bottle” or “Tote Bag” and few product details.
Does the test report include a picture of the product? Is the picture exactly the same as your product and does it include your color? The best test reports include detailed photographs of the actual products tested.
Look for the name of the company who ordered the test. Is it the same as the company you are buying the product from or is it a company you’ve never heard of? There’s no problem with tests ordered by overseas factories if they’re for your actual product but be wary of reports ordered by factories for generic versions of their products.

These tips are just a few of the basics in evaluating test reports. I’ve listed several others in my September 30^th article If You Sell Promotional Products, Learn to Read a Test Report. And if you’re a PPAI member, check out the November 2^nd webinar entitled How to Read a Test Report. It is archived on PPAI’s website.

Test reports are an important part of your due diligence to ensure that the products you’re selling comply with applicable law. Your customers are relying on the integrity of the reports you provide. Take this opportunity to go through your files to verify that you have current test reports for the products you’re selling and that the reports really are for your specific products.

If You Sell Promotional Products, Learn to Read a Test Report

September 30, 2011 ~ Rick Brenner ~ Leave a comment

I know, I know. Boring technical jargon. It’s all true.

But unless you have someone else in your company to take care of this for you, you can’t afford not to know how to read a test report.

There’s an easy way and a hard way. I’ll show you the easy way. The hard way is to find out that the product you thought was compliant isn’t compliant and that the official looking test report you’ve got in your file is out of date, not relevant to your specific product or doesn’t include all the tests you need.

I know. I learned the hard way.

Back in 2007, when the testing mania began and before we started ordering our own tests, we asked all of our factories to send us test reports for the products in our line. This was a year before CPSIA, before phthalate limits, before lead-in-substrate limits, and before mandatory ASTM F963. The only federal lead restriction was the 600 ppm limit for lead in paint or surface coating – the one that tripped up Mattel with their Barbie Doll recalls.

We received plenty of official looking reports and most of them from well-known testing labs. They referred to tests and codes like EN71, RoHS and 16 CFR 1303. Some included photographs, some did not. We dutifully filed them away and provided them on request to any distributor who asked – the ones doing business with corporations who have really knowledgable compliance people. And that’s when the education began – when those people saw the holes in some of the reports we provided.

“This report is dated 2005. Do you have a current one?” “The product in this report is a tumbler but it doesn’t look anything like one than we’re buying.” “EN71 is for Europe. Do you have a test report for the US standard ASTM F963?”

You get the idea. Almost none of the reports were for the actual products in our line. Most were outdated and covered mostly European standards.

Bullet point one: If the test isn’t for the exact product you’re purchasing, it doesn’t mean anything. Never mind that the factory says it’s made of the same material. If you’re purchasing Prime’s LT-3290 then the test report needs to say LT-3290. And it should have a picture so you know for sure that the test is for the same product you’re ordering.

Bullet point two: The test should be current. The date is critical because the standards have changed. It doesn’t help you to have a lead test dated April 2011 if the bag you’re buying was manufactured in September. The lead standard in April was 300 ppm. After August 14 it changed to 100 ppm.

Speaking of ppm, that’s just a way of expressing a very dilute concentration of a substance. It means one out of a million the way percent means one of a hundred. So lead of 90 ppm means 90 parts out of a million. Bullet point three: Since the number is critical, make sure the test report shows the actual number – not just PASS or FAIL. Without that number you can’t tell if the product complies with the current standards in the law. In CPSIA particularly the lead standards have been continually phased down since August 2008.

Bullet point four: Don’t assume that the test covers everything. Last year we received a passing test report for a small battery powered stuffed toy. The test passed but the battery compartment wasn’t included in the sample tested. After 5,000 pieces were produced we learned that the battery compartment didn’t comply and required several thousand dollars of rework. Expensive mistake.

Labs only perform the tests that they’re asked to perform, just as in the stuffed toy example. So if you see a report with a passing lead test, look closely to see what it is covering. CPSIA requires two different lead tests. The first is for lead in the material itself – sometimes called total lead or lead-in-substrate. (The actual wording in CPSIA is “total lead content by weight for any part of the product”). That limit is currently 100 ppm for children’s products. The second requirement is for lead in any paint or surface coating. That could either be a painted surface of the product itself or the imprint/applique that the supplier or decorator applies. Normally ink used for printed material like books and catalogs is considered part of the material. But heat transfers, pad printing and silk screening inks – particularly if they can be scraped off – are usually considered surface coating. The lead limit for paint and surface coating is 90 ppm. So you need a test for the lead in the material and a separate test for lead in any surface coating. The lead in material test is usually labeled on a test report as something like “CPSIA Lead in substrate.” The lead in surface coating test is usually labeled 16 CFR 1303 for the section number of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) containing the regulation.

Bullet point five: European standards are for Europe. US standards are for the US. They aren’t the same. If you see a passing test report for EN71 – the European toy safety standard – don’t assume that the product will pass ASTM F963 – the US toy safety standard. They’re different.

Bullet point six: If your product happens to be a toy, it needs to comply with the the Federal Toy Safety Standard usually referred to as ASTM F963. This used to be a voluntary standard but in CPSIA – the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act – Congress made it mandatory. ASTM F963 isn’t one test – it’s 67 pages of various tests for which toys need to comply. If you drop the toy from three feet will it shatter? Is it a choke hazard? Does it have sharp edges? Lots of things like that. So if your product is a toy, be sure that the report states that it is fully compliant with all applicable tests from the current ASTM F963 standard. Most labs will do that automatically but remember our battery compartment experience.

Bullet point seven: Toys (and child care items) need to be tested for six phthalates: DEHP, DBP, and BBP, DINP, DIDP, and DnOP. These are plasticizers – chemicals added to make plastic more flexible like the strand that attaches the ear buds to your iPod. The maximum limit for each of these phthalates is .1 percent. Make sure the test report lists all six and indicates that there is no more than .1 percent of each one.

These are the basics for the tests required by CPSIA. There are certainly plenty of other possible tests if your product is subject to another Federal Act, ban or regulation. And there are state regulations too. But let’s save those for a future article.

Remember these seven bullets and you’re 90% of the way there.

The Problem with Test Reports

September 23, 2011 ~ Rick Brenner ~ Leave a comment

It was one of our hottest selling bags and we were flat out-of-stock. At least a dozen backorders had already piled up by the time the container with 150,000 new pieces finally arrived at our receiving dock.

The product, a polyester backpack with a zippered pocket, came in four colors, each with a matching coated zipper pull. The arriving pieces should have gone into production as fast as the container was unloaded. Instead, I received a chilling email from my in-house testing lab:

Product failed XRF test upon receipt. Lead: 4,600 ppm in surface coating of zipper pull. Shipment quarantined.

4,600! The legal limit was 600 ppm if those bags were decorated for children. How could it be? Didn’t we have a pristine test report from a major third party lab just weeks earlier?

Yes, it was true. This shipment failed but weeks earlier we had received a current test report in which the same product from the same factory passed every test with flying colors, and from one of the most respected CPSC-certified labs in the world. What could have gone wrong?

A lot went wrong, we learned. To begin with, the sample that was sent to the testing lab was made from a different batch of material than the production pieces. That’s not unusual. As long as the product spec, bill of materials and factory doesn’t change you shouldn’t have to send every batch to be third party tested.

But that’s the point. Something obviously did change but no one knew about it. Maybe not even the factory. It’s the same thing that happened to all those Barbie Dolls® back in 2007. In this case it was the zipper pull. The production pieces were sprayed with a different coating than the sample.

So what can we learn from this incident? Does it mean you can’t rely on third party test reports?

No, the report was fine. The sample that passed the test was fine. The problem was the factory, not the testing lab.

Factories assemble products from raw materials and components that they buy from other suppliers. A bag factory will buy fabric, lining, metal, paint, grommets, thread, handles, wheel assemblies, binding, and whatever else they need from a a variety of sources. If they are required to make a product that complies with 100 ppm lead, that’s what they’ll specify to their suppliers. But how many factories are equipped as we are to scan every incoming shipment to verify that it complies with the spec? Very few, if any, in my experience. They rely on the integrity of their supply chain and sometimes that supply chain lets them down.

The problem could be with just a portion of an order. Maybe the factory runs out of a particular material and needs a little extra to complete the order. But their main supplier is out of stock, or won’t accept orders for small quantities. So the factory goes elsewhere to fill the need. Maybe the extra material complies, maybe not.

It’s why Prime and other quality suppliers who buy from dozens of factories in China and elsewhere can’t rely on a once per year third party test report. In our case, we’ve had our testing lab in-house since October 2007 – to check every incoming shipment, no matter what the previous test report says. Other quality oriented suppliers in the industry do the same, either in China or in the US.

The most important lesson is to understand that compliance is not a destination. It’s not something that you do once or periodically. It’s a journey, day in and day out. The process never stops. Whatever you did yesterday means little for the product that is produced tomorrow unless you work as hard at being vigilant tomorrow as you did yesterday.

For distributors the lesson is to know your supplier well. Understand that test reports are only one indication of a good compliance program. There are many suppliers in the industry with rock solid compliance programs that you can rely on. Visit with your suppliers whenever you can, either in person or at trade shows, ask to meet or speak with their compliance officer. Ask what kinds of checks and balances the supplier uses to guarantee consistent, safe and compliant product.

Remember: In a great compliance program third party test reports are just the tip of the iceberg.