Mom questions veracity of flame resistant labels

In response to our question, “What’s your beef?” Stephanie Gervais of Bradford writes:

“Actually its not as much a ‘beef’ as an important warning. I just had a baby and some of her 0-3 months outfits are labeled ‘NOT INTENDED FOR SLEEPWEAR.’ Now what exactly does a baby this age do all the time other than eat, fill diapers and take a little tummy time? I’m not going to change her outfit for 15 minutes of tummy time. This label is just a ‘cover yours’ for the fact it is NOT flame resistant. Then there is another garment with the well-known bear and his tiger friend labeled ‘100% cotton. … Sleepwear … Garment is NOT Flame Resistant.’ Hold the phone … I thought ALL infant sleepwear was REQUIRED by FEDERAL LAW to be flame resistant? Can you imagine how many trusting mothers haven’t noticed this? I just wanted to make sure this info got out.”

Thanks Stephanie and, oh, by the way, this ain’t Kansas any more. You’ve just stumbled onto America’s ugly little secret. Career bureaucrats and politicians will often do anything to water down or render useless protective legislation to protect corporate profits over the public interest.

As a defense against burn injuries, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission urges parents to make sure their children’s sleepwear is either flame-resistant or snug-fitting and warns that loose-fitting T-shirts and other loose-fitting clothing made of cotton or cotton blends should not be used for children’s sleepwear. These garments can catch fire easily, burn rapidly, and are associated with nearly 300 emergency-room-treated burn injuries to children each year. Children are most at risk from burn injuries that result from playing with fire (matches, lighters, candles, burners on stoves) just before bedtime and just after rising in the morning.

As of June 28, 2000, CPSC required hangtags and permanent labels on snug-fitting children’s sleepwear made of cotton or cotton blends to remind consumers that because the garment is not flame-resistant, it must fit snugly for safety. The yellow hangtag for snug-fitting garments says: “For child’s safety, garment should fit snugly. This garment is not flame resistant. Loose-fitting garment is more likely to catch fire.” The permanent label says, “Wear snug-fitting. Not flame resistant” and is sewn into the neck of the garment.

Flame-resistant garments are made from inherently flame-resistant fabrics or are treated with flame retardants and do not continue to burn when removed from a small flame. Snug-fitting sleepwear is made of stretchy cotton or cotton blends that fit closely against a child’s body. Snug-fitting sleepwear is less likely than loose T-shirts to come into contact with a flame and does not ignite as easily or burn as rapidly because there is little air under the garment to feed a fire.

The CPSC says, “It’s safer to put your children in flame-resistant or snug-fitting sleepwear, not in other types of loose-fitting cotton or cotton-blend garments. Look for the new yellow hangtags. They tell you that the garment should fit snugly and they warn that a loose-fitting garment is more likely to catch fire.”

CPSC sets national safety standards for children’s sleepwear flammability. These standards protect children from serious burn injuries if they come in contact with a small flame. Under federal safety rules, garments sold as children’s sleepwear for sizes larger than 9 months must be flame-resistant or snug-fitting.

Does this all sound like “bureaucratic gobbledygook” to you Stephanie? Bingo! You get an A-plus. Another glowing example of “Hi, I’m from the government … and I’m here to help.” Caveat emptor.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast COMBAT/The Maine Center for the Public Interest, Maine’s membership-funded nonprofit consumer organization. For help or to request individual or business membership information write: Consumer Forum, Bangor Daily News, PO Box 1329, Bangor 04402-1329.