Are cloth diapers affected by CPSIA? (UPDATED)
Yes, any maker (small or large) of cloth diapers must comply with CPSIA. The required testing under the law, however, will depend both on the type of diapers you make as well as the CPSC’s final definition of a “child care article.”
Natural or synthetic textiles are now exempt from lead testing, therefore the parts of the diaper that need to be tested for lead fall to the snaps and elastic if it is visible, as long as you are not making diapers using fabrics with a waterproof finish or PUL.
While there is no final rule on the definition of a “child care article” it is smart to proceed as though diapers will fall into this category. Phthalate testing would therefore be required due to certain materials used to construct the diaper.
Here is a chart pulled together by Wacky Hermit that details commonly used diaper making materials, and their exemption status. This chart assumes that a diaper will be defined by the CPSC as a “child care article.”
| Material | Test for lead? | Test for phthalates? |
| Fabric (natural or synthetic) | No | No |
| Fabric with waterproof finish | Yes | Yes |
| PUL | Yes* | Yes |
| Elastic | No | Yes* |
| Velcro (nylon or polyester) | No | No |
| Metal snaps (stainless steel) | No | No |
| Painted metal snaps | Yes*** | Yes |
| Plastic snaps | Yes | Yes** |
| Natural latex | No | No |
* If these materials are inaccessible (i.e. hidden inside the diaper where no one can touch them), they do not have to be tested for lead.
** Snaps made of certain plastics (polyethylene or polypropylene) do not need to be tested for phthalates.
*** Paints are held to a smaller lead content standard (90 ppm lead) than the underlying metal.
For additional information on diapers and the CPSIA, refer to the Real Diaper IndustryAssociation which is helping its members take a proactive response to the CPSIA.
Tweet This Post 
Facebook 
Stumble This Post
- No related posts at this time
While this guide is helpful for cloth diaper makers, the idea that PUL and elastic would need to be tested on any type of diaper doesn’t make much sense. PUL and elastic would never come in contact with a child while the product is being used (ie: being worn). Since a diaper is not a toy, it would stand to reason that, during proper use, there would not be any exposure to PUL or elastics.
Additionally, after having no less than 40 samples of fabric that has PUL applied, there was not one sample with a notable lead reading.
It would be infinately helpful if the logic that lead to this determination, was explained.
So what if I turn my PUL so that the fabric is the side you would touch then does that make the PUL enclosed?
Thanks
At present, the PUL must be tested for lead because of the laminate – polyurethane is not an exempt finish.
After rereading the documentation, it appears that elastics are exempt from lead testing and I have therefore updated the above table.
Regardless, if both of these are encased thereby making them inaccessible, they do not have to be tested.
As this is not an official site and merely meant to be an educational one, should you have further questions about why PUL has to be tested for lead, the CPSC would probably be the best resource for answers.
I’m not sure I completely understand the question but if you were to sandwich the piece of PUL in between two pieces of fabric and sew it all together then that would be enclosed. Does this help?
Michelle: I agree; unfortunately, since the law wasn’t written using any logic of which I’m aware, there will be no way to suss out the logic behind it.
This is a great reference for not only cloth diapers but really for most apparel manufacturers as well. Well done.
Does anyone know where I can purchase stainless steel snaps? I can’t find them anywhere, and they seem like a great solution.
Inaccessible parts still require phthalates testing – http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/faq/108faq.html
Ashley, thanks for the link. When we posted, there had been more recent information on phthalates and testing, and it was there that we thought they mentioned it too need not be tested if inaccessible. No such luck, it appears, because we cannot seem to find that statement again.
I have updated the post to reflect this information.