It seems like only yesterday that the toy business' biggest names were hauled in front of Congress—and the suddenly very watchful eyes of the nation's parents—to explain just what had gone so horribly wrong in the industry's manufacturing and distribution chain that millions of toys were suddenly being recalled from retailers' shelves for illegal levels of lead in their surface paints.

It was a dark period between July and October 2007. The ramifications of that period are still being felt, and they'll continue to influence your business at least through August 2011 as this summer's Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA)—itself the direct result of last summer's recalls—mandates a steadily decreasing allowance of lead permitted in surface paints on toys, in three stages, starting in February 2009.

But time may soon speed up once again, unfortunately. From the degree of consternation that's been bandied about in the toy manufacturing community in the last few weeks, we're getting the impression this holiday season is going to be extra busy—in the worst sort of way. You'll have the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's general counsel, Cheryl Falvey, to thank for that. In a September 12 memo to CPSC boss Nancy Nord, she argued that the CPSIA's declaration that the Feb. 10, 2009, phase-in of the Act's 600 parts-per-million lead limit be applied not only to new products, but applied retroactively to all children's products on the market on that date. The decision came after a close reading of the Act that sought to settle the question of what exactly did Congress intend when it came to the continued sale of products made before Feb. 10, 2009, because, admittedly, the CPSIA doesn't actually say what the legal status of pre-existing products with lead levels higher than 600 ppm should be at that time. If you enjoy legalese, feel free to review the memo's explanation about the precedents for and against Falvey's take that “products with more than 600 ppm of lead must come off the shelves no later than February 10, 2008…” You can find the document at www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advi sory/317.pdf.

The ruling has brought to the surface all sorts of questions about what to do if you as a manufacturer find your 2008 products being shipped back to you because they are no longer legal to sell in the United States … or anywhere else. (If you have any insight as to what to do in such circumstances, we'd certainly like to hear from you!)

More immediately, one thing is certain: Compared to last year, 2008 has been noticeable in regards to the lessening of lead-related product recalls. The industry's stepped-up efforts at self-policing seem to be working. Year-to-date through Sept. 21, 2008, there had been just over 323,000 units of what the CPSC considers “toys” recalled because of excess levels of lead by way of 16 separate recalls. Of course 16 lead-related recalls are 16 realls too many, but the good news is that they were nearly all relatively small compared to the unit figures involved in the recalls by RC2 and Mattel last year. In fact, only one lead recall—Merchant Media's pulling of a playset sold exclusively through QVC—topped 100,000 units. And of the companies involved, not more than a handful were even remotely household names (that is, unless your household includes a buyer for a dollar store). Hence, the comparatively limited media coverage this year's recalls have received. It's an achievement the industry might want to do more to publicly acknowledge.