AAFA Hosts Product-Safety Seminar
More than 100 apparel-industry attendees gathered to listen to speakers and panels on hot-button issues affecting the apparel business at the American Apparel & Footwear Association’s Dec. 8 seminar at the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel in Hollywood.
Speakers and panels addressed issues such as product safety, California’s controversial Proposition 65, supply-chain compliance and quality-control management.
Rebecca Mond, the AAFA’s government-relations manager, said there were 38 apparel- and footwear-related recalls in 2009, up from 33 in 2008 and 26 in 2007.
Timothy E. Sullivan, the deputy attorney general with the California Department of Justice, gave the event’s opening keynote speech, addressing Proposition 65. The law, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, became a focus again in 2008 when the federal Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act put product safety—specifically, children’s product safety—back into the mainstream consciousness.
Sullivan’s practice focuses on civil litigation to enforce Proposition 65 as well as other state and federal hazardous-waste requirements and environmental laws.
While the two laws are concerned with safety as it relates to toxic chemicals, heavy metals and other harmful substances, Sullivan said there are significant differences between the two. Among the differences, according to Sullivan:
The CPSIA targets lead and phthalates in consumer products, while Proposition 65 targets hundreds of chemicals that can cause cancer or reproductive harm.
The CPSIA applies chiefly to children’s safety. Proposition 65 applies to everything, from water and clothing to buildings and pacifiers.
The CPSIA offers numeric thresholds for toxic chemicals—for example, children’s apparel may contain 0.1 percent of each of the six regulated phthalates. Proposition 65 has no concentration standards.
The CPSIA bans products that exceed toxicity limits. Proposition 65 doesn’t prohibit selling products that include toxic substances—it simply requires that those products include a clear and reasonable warning. “You can sell an asbestos sweater hellip; provided you give a warning first,” Sullivan quipped.
The CPSIA is enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Proposition 65 is enforced by the state attorney general, district attorneys, some city attorneys and private parties.
Under Proposition 65, Sullivan said, the California Department of Justice doesn’t decide who gets sued; it decides who brings the suit: either the state or a private party. Approximately 90 percent of Proposition 65 cases are brought by private parties. Civil penalties associated with Proposition 65 can be assessed at up to $2,500 per violation per day. Private parties are entitled to keep 25 percent of penalties if they win—something that acts as an incentive to encourage individuals to look for violations.—Erin Barajas
