With the holiday season in full swing, toy safety is once again front and center. Fortunately, this year has been relatively quiet in terms of headlines—particularly when compared with just two years ago when recalls for lead levels in toys manufactured in China was big news, or even last year when concern was high about cadmium in toys.

Ensuring the safety of children’s products is obviously always top of mind for consumers, toy manufacturers, and regulators alike. Recently, the issue has become especially important for one particular segment of the toy-manufacturing industry: small business.

In 2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which includes 41 references to children’s products and mandates that they meet stringent lead limits, undergo specific accredited (or certified) third-party laboratory testing, and carry permanent tracking labels.

However, in recent months, as lawmakers have proposed more stringent requirements, several small manufacturers have raised concerns that the cost of the existing third-party testing requirement is negatively impacting their business and that any further demands could, in effect, put them out of business.

Testing costs can range dramatically, depending on the complexity and number of components involved—from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per product. Standard toy testing takes about one week, with the exception of a few additional, more complex tests that can take a few weeks to complete.

While the concern about how this testing requirement could affect a business’ bottom line is valid, it is important to note the developments that have occurred since the passage of CPSIA in 2008. In the past year, certain changes have actually made complying with existing and future regulations a more viable, and affordable, option.

Testing Component Parts

In 2010, The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued guidance on component-part testing. This requires that certain components of toys be tested to comply with the chemical requirements set by the legislation and, once approved, that material type is safe for use throughout a product line.

For example, if four different toys produced by a manufacturer contain the same component material (such as a type of paint or plastic), that material only needs to be tested once to be used in all four toys. This not only reduces the time needed to test materials, but it also provides a more cost-effective solution for small manufacturers concerned about safety yet reluctant to use third-party testing because of additional costs. Additionally, there also are some materials that are exempt from testing completely, such as natural wood, because their risk is expected to be minimal.

Though many business owners might view third-party testing facilities and product testing as simply transactional (manufacturers bring in a toy component, that component is tested, pass-fail results are reported to manufacturers), where these facilities can provide significant value is in the counsel and one-on-one guidance that these experts provide to manufacturers. This advice is especially useful to those small businesses that may not have the internal resources—financial, technical, or regulatory—to keep up with the latest toy-safety requirements. For some small businesses, this type of one-on-one feedback and counseling can make all the difference.

Defining a Children’s Product

A frequent source of confusion among manufacturers is what actually constitutes a “children’s product.” In August 2010, CPSC issued guidelines to help clarify this point. Those guidelines indicate that a children’s product is one designed or intended primarily for children 12 years old and younger, and that meets the following criteria:

• A statement by the manufacturer about the intended use of the product;
• The product’s display, promotion, or advertising clearly states it is for children 12 and under;
• The product is commonly recognized by consumers as being intended for use by a child;
• Meets the requirements set by the age determination guidelines issued by the CPSC in September 2002, and any subsequent changes to such guidelines.

Simple clarification of precisely what constitutes a children’s product has been incredibly helpful for the industry overall—these guidelines help set proper parameters for manufacturers and make it easier to determine which products need testing and which do not.

Better Labeling and Tracking

Another recent development in the toy-safety arena is the change to labeling and tracking requirements for children’s products that took effect this year. As of August 14, 2010, labels for children’s products must include the following information: manufacturer’s name, the location of the production facility, the date produced, and cohort information. The product label, which should be permanent, is required to be on both the product itself as well as the packaging. This requirement obviously makes it easier for the consumer to identify products in the event of a recall, and it also makes the manufacturer’s job easier in tracking products.

The amount of information regarding toy safety and CPSC requirements can sometimes feel overwhelming, particularly for small businesses that cannot afford missteps. But that doesn’t mean small businesses should simply view these requirements as an impediment to success. Toy manufacturers, particularly small companies, should look for accredited testing organizations that make sense, such as those with toy-testing expertise, knowledge of the toy industry and related safety legislation, and a willingness to take the time to provide counsel on cost-effective solutions for small businesses.

In the end, testing labs, regulatory agencies, and consumers all have the same goal: to ensure that only the safest children’s products and toys actually make it onto the shelves and into children’s hands. By working with trusted, third-party testing experts, manufacturers big and small can take the steps necessary to comply with existing regulations, stay informed of what’s on the horizon, and make safer products. And that’s a win-win for everyone.

Editor's Note: The above column represents the opinions of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of Portfolio.com. If you have another opinion to share, please offer it below.