Child Safety and Toy Design
There are 80,000 chemicals that affect child safety and our environment. According to Congressional statements made by Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), the EPA has requested information on about 200 of these chemicals, and has restricted five of these chemicals in 32 years. Many of these chemicals are in thousands of children’s products and regulation would affect design of these products. More importantly, regulation would address the existence of these chemicals in the blood of newborn babies. Without regulation, there is a scary unknown about the potential rise of childhood deformities, cancers, allergies and diseases.
The “Kid Safe Chemicals Act” was introduced in May 2008 by Sen. Lautenberg and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Reps. Hilda Solis (D-CA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA).
Recently, however, Congress has passed HR4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, to restrict certain phthalates and tighten safety of products intended for children under the age of 12 within the last few weeks. This latest bill set out to address the recall scares of last year. It is important no doubt, but I certainly hope that it doesn’t stop the movement of this other powerful act.
The “Kid Safe Chemicals Act,” if passed, would update the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) that has not been updated since 1976. “Most new chemicals are approved with little or no safety testing, and more than 62,000 existing chemicals have remained on the market for three decades despite evidence that some pose serious health risks,” according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
In 2005, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced similar legislation to update the TSCA called “The Child Worker and Consumers Chemical Act.” Shame on that Congress for not pursuing this – perhaps last year’s mess could have been completely avoided if they had advanced that act.
Toy design is very much dependent on some of these chemicals. Chlorine (PVC) is used in many toys, and, according to www.healthytoys.org, is very brittle and typically needs additives for flexibility. According to their website, “Phthalates are used in many plastics, especially PVC products, as a softening agent to make the plastic flexible. Over 90% of all phthalates are used in PVC products.” Examples of these are plastic books, bibs, backpacks, plastic packaging and toys, plastic clothes and shoes and other plastic products.
The Toy Industry Association (TIA) reaction to this website is stated, “The mere presence of inaccessible substances in trace amounts does not mean a product is harmful. In fact, HealthyToys.org acknowledges the tested products are not harmful when they state: ‘HealthyToys.org ratings do not provide a measure of health risk or chemical exposure associated with any individual toy or children’s product, or any individual element or related chemical.’ ”
Why then, in EPA data, does it indicate that vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen, can be released from these? Also according to EPA data, phthalates can be responsible for developmental abnormalities such as cleft palate and skeletal malformations.
Upon passage of HR4040, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) also announced its disappointment in the Congressional decision to restrict phthalates from products intended for children under the age of 12. The Council’s statement on phthalates is consistent throughout its website, “Phthalates are among the most thoroughly studied products in the world, and have been reviewed by multiple regulatory bodies in the U.S. and Europe. The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s review of the safety of phthalates in vinyl toys unequivocally included the statement that there is ‘no demonstrated health risk.’ After all this study and review, no reliable scientific evidence has found phthalates to cause adverse human health effects.”
These contradictory statements are exactly why this latest act needs immediate review and consideration. The laws should not be about guessing and second guessing certain chemicals, the law should be about proving – ahead of manufacture – what these chemicals will do to our body systems and our environment. There are 80,000 chemicals in thousands of products made by more than a thousand companies using these chemicals today that have not been reviewed for safety other than voluntary business studies. Is it no wonder my three children have asthma?
In 2005, Sen. Lautenberg read to Congress, “The GAO (Government Accountability Office) reports the EPA does not readily assess existing chemicals and has limited information on their health and environmental risks.”
EWG did a study of 10 newborns and found more than 230 chemicals in them.
“When babies come into this world pre-polluted with hundreds of dangerous industrial chemicals already in their blood, it’s clear that the regulatory system is broken,” said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group (EWG). “The Kid Safe Chemicals Act will change a lax, outdated system that presumes chemicals are safe into one that requires makers of toxic chemicals to prove their safety before they’re allowed on the market. … This bill is a long-overdue move to put public health ahead of chemical industry profits.”
In regard to last year’s toy recalls, the Toy Industry Association response was, “The recent recalls are product and company specific and do not reflect the fundamental safety of the toys on the shelves.” I have three young kids – they would have already sucked all the lead out of any toys in recall. I did attempt fishing through the volumes – volumes! – of toys recalled and actually only found one shovel we had. There were, however, so many of their toys I could not begin to check, and, so, we are left guessing. It is statements such as these that leave me wondering whether they get the impact on the children and the world in their need for profit.
According to a review and risk study prepared for the TIA, a compound called DINP is the most commonly used phthalate in children’s products. In May 2007 the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) reported to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission that DINP was found to be a liver carcinogen in rats and kidney carcinogen in male rats, but that the cellular reactions in rats were not comparable to humans. Both studies state the concern was the DINP leeching from toys in “mouthing” of children, and that DINP in flexible toys is “unlikely” to pose a health risk in children.
The unlikelihood is based on lifetime daily doses in animals presumably higher than predicted worst-case doses in humans. The CHAP report stated, “there might be a risk to children who mouth DINP-plasticized toys for 75 minutes a day or more, day after day for an extended period of time. Dr. Daland Juberg, a toxicologist who reviewed studies of children’s mouthing behavior and the advisory panel’s conclusions, stated that ‘to date, there are no data to indicate that such children exist.’”
These presumptions were made in March 1999, toy industries voluntarily removed phthalates from teethers, bottle nipples and rattles. So, certainly, there are substitutes for some of these compounds. Of course, don’t forget, they all still contain PVC. Perhaps the reason this act was not reviewed in 2005 is because of the complexity of it. I would venture to say my children and many others “mouthed” their toys for more than 75 minutes a day. In this act, the question of proof is on the manufacturers, but who will refute them if they say it’s safe? What mechanisms will be put in place to verify their findings? Manufacturers voluntarily removed phthalates from these teethers, etc., but there are no enforceable restrictions on the sale of products that still contain DINP, foreign or domestic.
The goal of the “Kid Safe Chemicals Act” is to eliminate exposure to the 300 most toxic chemicals by 2012 and to all known harmful chemicals by 2020. In addition to the questions above, I wonder who will regulate the portions of it that can offer outs for toy companies – such as disruption in the national economy, use exceptions and information that could be kept confidential.
I still have more questions – the EPA does not even keep up with known carcinogens, and I see little regulation on the ones that it has identified. In the midst of all last year’s recalls, lead was not the only concern, but cadmium, mercury and arsenic were also found, according to healthytoys.org.
There is also a timing issue. According to Chris Bender, deputy press secretary for Sen. Lautenberg, if this bill gets passed as is, then companies will have to retool so they won’t wait until 2012 to comply and there will be fewer and fewer products with chemicals. I certainly hope this true, but my concern is it will take until 2012 to get out of Congress. And, 2020, is a whole new generation in my book.
Can’t we find a way to empower companies to come up with real changes? There’s always a risk, and, no guarantees, but, once a substance is proven to affect our health and the health of our children, I believe there should be no question about its place in the market. I’m writing my Congressmen to support this act. Certainly it is not perfect, but it’s been so long in the waiting and so immediately needed in the future.
>Written by d/visible contributor Doreen Campbell.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:17 am
[…] There are 80,000 chemicals that affect child safety and our environment. According to Congressional statements made by Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), the EPA has requested information on about 200 of these chemicals, and has restricted five of these chemicals in 32 years. Many of these chemicals are in thousands of children’s products and regulation would affect design (more…) […]