As part of a new social media outreach effort, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recently launched a blog providing a useful resource to keep parents informed with the most up-to-date safety and recall information.  Yesterday’s post highlighted yet another cadmium scare in children’s jewelry. The safety of children’s jewelry came into question earlier this year when an AP story broke that Chinese manufacturers were using cadmium as a replacement for lead which was recently restricted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).

The cadmium scare serves as another reminder of the danger of unintended consequences of well intended legislation. Banning hazardous chemicals does not guarantee that products will be safe. We must make sure that safer alternatives are available. While high levels of lead and cadmium are both hazardous to children, an even greater threat exists when safe products are banned.

In addition to lead, the CPSIA included a temporary ban on certain phthalates pending further review, when in reality these products have already been deemed safe for use in consumer products by multiple government agencies including the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Toxicology Program.  Banning a proven safe substance can actually expose our children to further risk from harmful substances.  The cadmium scare reemphasizes the need to encourage study of all chemicals present in our children’s products.

The retail giant Daiso was slapped with a fine of $2 million dollars for failure to comply with federal chemical regulations on toys and children’s products. Reports reveal that the company was accused of violating the U.S federal standards including the restrictions on lead and phthalates levels found in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).

According to a report from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the company “must now demonstrate to the Commission that it has sufficient knowledge of and is in compliance with CPSC safety standards and testing requirements.”

This consent decree provides reassurance that the agency is serious about protecting our families and working hard to ensure that the new safety regulations are met:

“This landmark agreement for an injunction sets a precedent for any firm attempting to distribute hazardous products to our nation’s children,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. “We are committed to the safety of children’s products and we will use the full force of our enforcement powers to prevent the sale of harmful products.”

While enforcing federal safety standards is an important step forward towards protecting our children, this alone does not ensure that all toys are safe.

The CPSIA includes restrictions on some safe chemicals. Phthalates like DINP have been studied and approved for use in consumer goods by multiple U.S. government agencies. The replacement of safe chemicals with less studied substances exposes children to unknown risks and potential dangers. We saw this recently when Chinese manufacturers used cadmium to replace lead in children’s jewelry. In April, the CPSC will convene a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) to review the safety of phthalates and their alternatives. We should encourage a more thorough review of the replacement chemicals to ensure that all products on the shelves are indeed safe.

For more information on the CPSIA, view our CPSIA guide here:

http://www.childsafetytaskforce.org/manufacturer-and-retailers-guide-to-the-cpsia/

A recent Washington Post story, “Alternatives to BPA containers not easy for U.S. foodmakers to find,” highlights a disturbing trend in the regulation of consumer goods. The actions to remove Bisphenol A (BPA) from food packaging containers present a perfect example of how precautionary actions can yield unintended consequences.

Activist pressure and sensationalized media reports have forced pending regulatory action at both the federal and state level resulting in the industry’s preemptive removal of BPA before a safe and effective alternative is available.  The people that end up getting hurt are American families who are put at risk. Industry representatives admit that, “We don’t have a safe, effective alternative, and that’s an unhappy place to be.”

What we are witnessing with BPA is similar to what happened with phthalates. I have often times commented on the unintended consequences of the phthalates restrictions included in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008. Phthalates including DINP, the phthalate most commonly used in children’s toys, has been tested and approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Toxicology Program, and the EU Chemicals Bureau and each agency has deemed DINP safe for use in consumer products. However, due to activist pressure, the CPSIA banned the use of certain phthalates including DINP in children’s toys and products; however, none of the probable alternatives to these phthalates have been tested or approved by a U.S. government agency. Replacing safe chemicals with less studied substances exposes children to unknown risks and potential dangers.

It now remains unclear what toymakers were using as a replacement for phthalates in their products. An NPR story reported that there is no guarantee that toys are safe “because companies currently aren’t required to publicly disclose the chemicals they use in place of phthalates — and little is known about the health effects of one of the most widely used alternatives.”

Regulation using the precautionary principle is a failed policy as the precautionary principle does not necessarily make us any better or any safer. The people who end up getting hurt are oftentimes the people the regulation or law is trying to protect. We need to ensure that ALL chemicals present in our children’s products are held to the same standard of safety.