Disney Corporation has, in my opinion, been slipping into a strange place over the last few years.
As an international entertainment and communication corporation they have become broad in their appeal and equally broad in their activities.
I saw parts of a movie the other day produced by Disney in Asia in which they partnered with a company by the name of ‘Toilet Pictures’.
In the movie a girl of about 6 years of age says after reading ‘Snow White‘, ‘…and they lived happily ever after. Yeah, right. S**t. We grow up with this crap. That’s why we have little stupid princesses around.’
A visit to children’s clothing departments may reveal another changed aspect of Disney Corporation’s attitude towards children.
The Flammable Fabrics Act calls for all untreated cotton sleepwear to be labeled "WEAR SNUG-FITTING NOT FLAME RESISTANT" and to carry a label that says, "FOR CHILD’S SAFETY, GARMENT SHOULD FIT SNUGLY. THIS GARMENT IS NOT FLAME RESISTANT. LOOSE-FITTING GARMENT IS MORE LIKELY TO CATCH FIRE. "
It appears that not all of the sleepwear and children’s clothing that is supposed to be tagged and labeled are actually being tagged and labeled. Not tagging and labeling the clothing correctly is a cost saving device.
Also, the American Broadcasting Company, (ABC), owned by Disney, showed a 5 hour fictional made-for-tv movie called ‘Path to 9/11’ on 9/11.
The Disney Company (through ABC) may be able to claim tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in tax write-offs because the FCC allowed them to call the exploitation film a public service announcement.
Whatever goodness Walt Disney injected into the company seems to have been flushed away a long time ago.
What has greed done to this once respectable company?

Disney gone evil.

FIRST they're not making their warning clear enough that children's clothing might actually be flamable, NOW they're making movies that make Clinton look bad. Tisk, tisk.


The same people who NEED to have children's clothing labled AND stamped as flammable are probably the same ones who take the Preperation H orally and complain to the company that Prep H does no good for their hemorhoids, but their mouths are now so small..........

I suggest you take a walk over to your local mall and take a look at what is on the racks.

As for the Commission it seems you have no trouble with those folks, who were hired to do one thing, are avoiding their responsibilities every chance they get.

Here's some more background information for you.

During the 1970’s a serious issue was tackled by our government legislators.
It was one of those problems that government - a good government - is good at solving.
The problem was children being burned while sleeping or while wearing cotton garments during regular play at home. The solution was to mandate that children’s sleepwear - especially that intended for infants should be flame resistant. As a result polyester became a popular material for children’s sleep and house wear rather than cotton which is highly flammable.
This result stood for a long a time and save many lives.
It also kept many children and adults from being needlessly burned and maimed from simple household and playtime accidents.
Well - those days are over.
About two years ago the Consumer Product Safety Commission quietly relaxed the regulations regarding this severe safety issue.
In spite of the evidence pointing out that this regulation reduced burn-related injuries and fatalities and was widely supported by fire and safety officials around the country this small commission with a big mouth undermined the safety of children, our families and our homes.
The new rules allow companies in Communist China to manufacture garments using nontreated cotton. This new rule allow companies in Communist China to directly compete with and destroy their competition in the United States.
The main problem is, however, what is happening to the children.
It’s a quiet way that these people have circumvented our laws in order to benefit Communist China. This quiet and sneaky change of rules has allowed cotton farmers to imagine they have gained a victory, when, in fact, the price of cotton has not changed much over the course of the last 30 years. That hasn’t stopped the National Cotton Council from butting their nose in.
Why would they do such a thing?
More than 70 percent of each year’s cotton crop is packed up into bales, loaded on ships and sent over to Communist China to feed their textile mills.
That is one reason they might do such a thing.
Seventy-five to eighty percent of the children’s sleepwear market is manufactured in places like Communist China, Pakistan, the Philippines and Vietnam.
This change was clearly made to please the cotton farming industry. It certainly wasn’t done to ensure that Americans companies, which for decades had obeyed the rule, kept any jobs in the United States.
Phillip Wakelyn a man identified as a scientist at the National Cotton Council called those who support the regulations "misguided" and attempted to say that the regulatory changes simply increased choices for shoppers to buy different kinds of cotton pajamas. He seems to believe that this can be done without putting children at risk.
The National Cotton Council collects money from each bale of cotton produced in the United States that is involved in United States Department of Agriculture programs. This money during some years is invested in stocks and bonds. They have often experienced considerable financial loss while doing this with someone else’s money. In my opinion it would be no surprise to me if they treated the lives of other people’s children with the same cavalier attitude they have toward other people’s money.
The original regulation which was hard fought for, originated as I mentioned in the 1970s. It required children's sleepwear to be flame resistant. The intention was to lessen burns and deaths for youngsters exposed to open flame originating from candles, gas stoves, matches, cigarette lighters, fireplaces and other fire sources.
The standard favored fabrics that did not ignite quickly and spread fast like cotton.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission quietly revised the regulation in 1996. They said that nontreated cotton clothing, as long as it is tight-fitting, may be labeled and sold as children's sleepwear.
The commission also supported selling nontreated cotton sleepwear for infant sizes 9 months or smaller as it does not pose a danger because babies of this age are insufficiently mobile to expose themselves to sources of fire.
The National Center for Health Statistics has reported that all clothing- related thermal burn fatalities declined sharply for all age groups after the federal regulation took effect in the early 1970s. Among children under age 15, there were 60 deaths in 1970; 15 in 1975; seven in 1980; six or fewer in each year from 1981 to 1992, and three or less each year from 1993 to 1996.
It was a law and regulation that worked and was good for the nation.
But not good for the folks on the Consumer Product Safety Commission or over at the National Cotton Council.
A representative of the cotton industry, Mr. Wakelyn, said, "Some say the cotton industry will be making a profit at the expense of children's lives. That is an absolute lie. "There is no data to show this change diminishes the effectiveness of the safety standard," he is quoted as saying "And the cotton industry would not do anything to increase its legal liability, and it would not support anything that would be harmful for children."
First of the cotton industry itself has no legal liability. It is a corporate non-entity. So, in my opinion, Mr. Wakelyn is making a misstatement to say the least about their financial liability.
As for his contention that no data shows this change increases danger to our children then he must not have seen the data or does not believe it. Before the standards were enacted, for example, about 1,000 children per year were burned seriously in clothing related fires.
As for me accepting Mr. Wakelyn’s word on this I want to tell a story about a spokesman for the tuna industry. He is so supportive of tuna and his job that he feeds tuna to his children every day. Morning, noon and night, apparently, if his wife lets him, in order to prove that Federal regulations regarding mercury poisoning are too strict.
That’s a little silly don’t you think?
I do. I also think that sort of behavior is dangerous.
I won’t be toasting any marshmallows with Mr. Wakelyn.
The commission claims it made the change because the old rules were difficult to enforce or unnecessary.
It is typical of this commission that they could not make up their mind why they bent the rules to please the cotton industry and put our children at risk.
Were the rules too difficult to enforce? They were successfully enforced for nearly 30 years before they were changed. The clothing industry - except for the cotton farmers - seemed to gladly enforce themselves in this matter and for a while children were safe in our nation because of good choices we made as citizens.
As for the rules being unnecessary that is beyond an insult and should not be allowed to stand as reasoning for abandoning this rule. In fact it smacks of child abuse.
So the commission believed that by putting a tag or label on the garments this would be enough.

You can go to any Walmart, Sears, Target, JC Penney, Lord & Taylor’s, Macy’s or other department store and see the tag in some of the garments manufactured for children.
It reads :
"WEAR SNUG-FITTING
NOT FLAME RESISTANT"

That label is supposed to direct parents to understand that loose fitting garments are dangerous and could cause serious injury. Children are being burned even today because they go to sleep or wear loose fitting cotton garments around the house.
Commission spokesman Russell Rader said there is concern for the 200 to 300 children a year who go to hospital emergency rooms for burns related to loose-fitting clothing.
"Our job and our mission is to save lives and prevent injuries, and injuries have been occurring when kids are dressed in loose-fitting T-shirts and sweatshirts as sleepwear," said Rader.
"The change in the sleepwear standard gives parents another safe choice. They can put kids in flame-resistant pajamas or they can put kids in cotton garments if they are snug fitting.", he is quoted as saying.
What Mr. Rader fails to mention is that cotton garments that are not sold as sleepwear do not carry the label. As for the idea that the garment should be snug fitting this is ridiculous considering that children are dressed in dress like garments when they are young. An argument can be made about what snug means as well. When you visit the mall you may find clothing with snug fitting bands at the writs and the neck or you may find garments with loose wrists and necks but snug around the body.
There is a problem with encouraging parents to dress their children in tight clothes but that is another issue entirely.
The commission actually argued on behalf of cotton farmers that pajamas that cling close to a child's body make it less likely for an accidental fire than pajamas with dangling sleeves.
The commission seems to have attempted a jump from being a responsible body to a body politic of fashion designers as well as fire and safety professionals.
A serious issue about this situation is that some of the clothes are not labeled as they should be.

There is supposed to be an additional yellow tag attached to the garment.
That tag is supposed to read :
"FOR CHILD’S SAFETY,
GARMENT SHOULD FIT SNUGLY.
THIS GARMENT IS NOT FLAME
RESISTANT. LOOSE-FITTING
GARMENT IS MORE LIKELY
TO CATCH FIRE. "

It is less likely you will see the yellow tag than you will see the tag inside the garment.
On recent trips to the mall I have seen on more than occasion garments of the same cut, size and make but of different colors side by side. Both one hundred percent cotton - but one labeled :
"WEAR SNUG-FITTING
NOT FLAME RESISTANT"
…while the other one was not labeled at all. It clearly identified itself as being one hundred percent cotton but the warning did not appear anywhere.
In many departments the yellow label did not accompany the garment.
I began to wonder why Carter’s, the children’s clothing company, seemed to rarely include the warning and even less rarely the yellow label while the Sesame Street brand seemed always to carry it.
I concluded that the Sesame Street brand being associated with Public Television needed to obey the law while Carter’s needed only to make money.
Their slogan is ‘If they would only stay small until their Carter’s wear out.’
Let us hope that they stay healthy before their Carter’s scorch their skin.
But to be fair I also found a majority of the Disney children’s clothing to be what I considered to be incorrectly labeled.
I have to say ‘what I consider to be’ because the Disney company might take offense that I am intimating that they are taking liberties with the safety of children. I am not going to go into a lengthy discussion about the children that have died on Disney rides at Disney Land and Disney World - I am merely talking about their attitude towards children in their textile products.
I saw clothing made by Disney for 9 month old babies and 6 month old babies. They were 100 percent cotton. They did not contain the warning nor carry the yellow label. They were loose fitting garments that had little booty feet on them. I imagined that Disney did not obey the law because they figured the 6 or 9 month old would use their booty suits for athletic gear and probably jog in them.
The fact is that many of the major manufacturers who are producing these items from American cotton shipped to foreign lands for processing and then returned to the United States for sale prices far above their relative worth are not obeying even the simplest of laws that has been left by the weak and undignified Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Rader is quoted as saying that a study of emergency-room burn accidents since 1993 involving children found no cases involving tight-fitting cotton pajamas. Notice he did not say sleep wear nor did he say t-shirts, body shirts, sweatshirts. He said tight-fitting cotton pajamas which could mean tight-fitting untreated cotton pajamas. My point here is that the National Cotton Council has a different vocabulary for their world and it only comes in contact with ours when they want money.
A review of the manner in which cotton is priced would shortly bring you in contact with just how disconnected they are from the real world not to mention real trade but that is another matter entirely.
Steve Lamar who is the director of government relations for the American Apparel Manufacturers Association, is quotes as saying that the change will "ensure the safest possible sleepwear choices for our children."
I wonder if any of these people have children. Then again, I should not wish these folks as parents on anyone lest they become victims of experimentation like the children of the tuna industry spokesman who stuffs his children full of potentially tainted tuna each day.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is the government agency responsible for protecting the American public from unreasonable risks of injury associated with products used in or around the home.
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission is clearly failing in its duties at the most basic level.

Infants (0 to 9 months)
All infant sleepwear in sizes to nine months may now be made from either flame resistant or non-flame resistant fabrics.
Children (9 months to size 14)
Children's sleepwear larger than size 9 months must either be flame resistant or worn snug-fitting.
Flame resistant sleepwear does not ignite easily and must self-extinguish quickly to meet the U.S. CPSC flammability requirements for children's sleepwear. Flame resistant garments may be worn either loose fitting or snug- fitting.
Snug-fitting sleepwear which meet CPSC sizing guidelines and are made from natural fabrics (such as cotton) which are non-flame resistant will not create an unreasonable risk of burn injuries to children.

What to look for when buying sleepwear:
All snug-fitting sleepwear garments manufactured or imported after
June 28, 2000 must have a permanent warning statement in the neck label:

WEAR SNUG-FITTING
NOT FLAME RESISTANT

Look for the yellow hang-tag or label on package with the following warning:

FOR CHILD’S SAFETY,
GARMENT SHOULD FIT SNUGLY.
THIS GARMENT IS NOT FLAME
RESISTANT. LOOSE-FITTING
GARMENT IS MORE LIKELY
TO CATCH FIRE.

Parents :
It is advised that you do not allow your children to sleep in loose-fitting or oversized garments such as T-shirts, sweatshirts, or other apparel items made from non-flame resistant fabrics especially cotton. These garments ignite more easily and may cause severe burn injuries.

Please be advised that :
"Certain industry groups, such as the National Cotton Council and the American Apparel Association, as well as individual companies, such as Carter's, have given assurances they will mount an information and education campaign, with CPSC guidance to force consumers to understand why the cotton sleepwear garments that are being allowed on the market must fit their children snugly; why certain types of sleepwear garments will remain polyester; and, why loose fitting cotton garments should not be used as sleepwear."

Please note that I have never seen any of this material in written, spoken or picture form and that it is my opinion that I, Alfred Brock, not the National Cotton Council, the American Apparel Association or company’s like Carter’s have brought these dangers and the cold and calculated actions of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to your attention.

I thought I should tell you about one person who has served on the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Her name is Mary Gall.
During her bureaucratic career I learned she served as assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
She was also counselor to the director of the Office of Personnel Management.
During the Reagan administration she was the deputy policy advisor to Vice President Bush and as such participated in the President's Cabinet Council meetings and contributed to the development and implementation of the President's domestic policy agenda.
She also was a consultant to the Reagan-Bush Presidential Campaign and as director of research in the George Bush for President Campaign.
The Present President Bush wanted to appoint her to be the director of the Commission. Her salary would have been about $134,000.00 a year.

She had been a critic of the previous Chairman’s style, accusing her of promoting a "federal Nanny State."
In one case concerning baby bath seats there were at least 67 deaths associated with the seats which were advertised as making it easier for parents to bathe infants 6 to 9 months old. Some babies slipped out of the seats and drowned when left unattended even for a short time.
The Chairman of the Commission wanted to ban the seats while Gall argued that it was the parents' responsibility to use the seats safely. To paraphrase it was the parents’ responsibility to use the dangerous product safely.
It was also reported that Gall voted against regulating certain baby walkers and said it is not the manufacturers' fault if parents fail to supervise their children and let them fall down a flight of stairs while using the walkers.
Gall was also instrumental in moving towards denying a ban on Chromated Copper Arsenate for use in Playground Equipment.

Gall’s replacement and now Acting Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is Nancy A. Nord.
President Bush nominated her for a term that would end in the year 2012. That is six years from now. That is quite a long time.
She is a lawyer.
She worked at the United States Chamber of Commerce which is a group dedicated to opposing Federal Regulation and letting businesses do pretty much whatever they want to.
She is married to James S. Halpern who is a judge on the U.S. Tax Court.

The attitude of the National Cotton Council, Cotton Incorporated, the Cotton Farmers of America, the Cotton Ginners of America and importers like JC Penney, Sears, Walmart, Kohl’s, K-Mart, Target, Lord & Taylor’s and Macy’s was summed up for me by a 100 percent cotton t-shirt I saw as I left the mall the other day.

It said, ‘It’s hard to act like I care, because I don’t.’
It seems they just don’t care.

The timing is odd, as is your post, cranston.

Right after ABC and Disney came out with a docudrame that made Clinton look bad, we suddenly hear that Disney is putting children's lives in danger.

If you had posted about Disney not properly tagging the children's clothes without the bit about the docudrama "distorting" the facts and making Clinton look bad, well your post would be boring. But we get the political message as well as the bit about the clothing. Seems that Disney and ABC are about to be taught a lesson in when to keep their mouths shut, dammit.

That's a little paranoid if not callous of you.
So you will let the children suffer because you doubt the facts before you?
Hmmm.

Let me get that straight - you are defending a large international company because you perhaps watched and believed 'Path to 9/11'.

Meanwhile, I am bringing out the point that this same larger internatiol company (along with Carter's and others) has become so large that it can't keep track of what it is doing.

Did you miss the original quote about the girl child making remarks against Disney in a Disney film which was produced in conjunction with a company called 'Toilet Productions'?

You are the first person to have distinguished himself not by confusing your religion with your politics but by confusing your economics with your politics.

I wrote something like, "Disney is not the company it used to be."

You brought up politics. Nice going. I think the law needs to be tightened and the Commission needs to do its job or get broken up. If you don't care for the timing that's kind of weird.

There is no time like the present to do the right thing. Americans used to know that.:corn:

Ok, the tag things are a little retarded - I doubt that any lives would be saved by having a tag that says "Wear snugly, or this will become flammable" - thats more legal liability crap. How about we put a tag on the kids saying "Keep away from open flame" or "Danger, child is not flame resistant". Thats just basic parenting knowledge.

In any case, Disney should have put the tags on if it was required, but I really don't believe that they would do that for money-saving reasons. The little tags cost like a penny a piece to put on.

As for the film I'll have to go see it first, but I have a great respect for Clinton for what he did in his term in office and I doubt that a film, which states what I probably already know, will change that. So far I have heard maybe one intelligent critique of his acts as a president with regards to our nation (which would not include his sex life).

You forgot to mention that even under the new rules, children's sleepware must still conform to the flammability requirements of regulation16 C.F.R. 1610.

First off, Cranston, I never say the movie "The Path to 9/11," I wasn't interested.

Secondly, I'll agree that little tags have to be affixed to children's sleepwear warning parents that, yes indeed, cotton is flamable and children can get burned if you expose them to open flames while wearing such garments.

Just don't go and mix safety hazzards with political messages and you won't attract my attention on such issues, dammit.

Here is a link to the 'Flammable Fabrics Act' that the Commission is supposed to support not subvert.

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/ffatext.html

They are not a court.
They are not an elected representational body.
They are not part of the executive branch.

They are a problem.