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.

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/

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.

The safety topic du jour remained the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). Both Chairman Tenenbaum along with representatives from TIA spoke to some of the unintended consequences of this new law including compliance issues with testing and third party certification. However, Tenenbaum also stressed the danger of replacing banned chemicals with even more dangerous substances and citied the cadmium scares from last month. While cadmium was used to replace lead, the consequences can be even more concerning when a safe chemical is banned even temporarily-which is exactly the case with phthalates. Of all the alternative plasticizers to phthalates, none have been tested or approved by a U.S. government agency.

Tenenbaum noted that the agency is currently moving forward with the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) which is charged with reviewing and assessing the safety of phthalates and their alternatives. Seven independent scientists have been appointed to the panel. We are pleased to hear that progress is being made with the scientific review, but we are still concerned that precious times is being wasted looking at products which have already been extensively risk assessed by several government panels and proven safe each time. As long as safe and studied chemicals are kept out of the market as a result of the temporary prohibition, American children will be exposed to the risk of relatively unknown and less reviewed substitutes. We call on the CHAP to conduct an expedited review on already proven safe chemicals and instead focus on reviewing the unknown substitute chemicals which are now being pumped into our children’s products.

Although the CPSIA was a well-intended piece of legislation aimed to improve product safety for American families, implementation has resulted in a series of problems including high testing costs, wasted inventory, and other burdens on small businesses.

However, one of the most serious consequences of the CPSIA is the restriction on certain chemicals which have been proven safe.

Phthalates, a chemical additive used to soften plastics, got grouped in with real hazards and was added to the legislation.  Phthalates have been used safely for decades in a variety of products from garden hoses to rubber ducks and have been extensively studied and approved for use by multiple government agencies.

The law restricts the use of several phthalates including a temporary ban on di-isonyl phthalate (DINP), a specific phthalate known to be used in children’s toys. This ban will remain in place until an additional Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) review is completed. However, in 2001, a previous CPSC review on DINP concluded “no demonstrated health risk” from its use in toys and “no justification” for banning its use.

So, why is this concerning?

As long as safe and studied chemicals are kept off the market as a result of the temporary prohibition, American children will be exposed to the risks of relatively unknown and less reviewed substitutes. Take the cadmium scare for example.  Just a few weeks ago, a story broke about a massive  recall on Chinese jewelry and toys which contain the chemical cadmium, which is known to cause cancer and other health problems if digested. Chinese manufacturers were using cadmium as a replacement for lead which was restricted by the CPSIA. Congress placed restrictions on both lead and phthalates in children’s products through the CPSIA but did not consider what manufacturers would replace them with.

Banning-even temporarily-a proven safe substance from our children’s products exposes them to potential harm. Of all the available alternative plasticizers to DINP, none have been reviewed and approved for use by a U.S. government agency.

Confidence in product and chemical safety can only come from sound science and accurate testing. In order to avoid future toxic toys scares we must encourage testing on all chemicals present in our children’s products. We should encourage the CPSC and other federal agencies to focus testing efforts on those chemicals which have not been adequately studied.

The recently published book, “Slow Death by Rubber Duck”, attempts to make some interesting claims about the affects of certain chemicals in our everyday life; however, it would be more convincing if they had any facts to support their accusations.  The authors perform several homemade experiments by exposing themselves to environmental chemicals in an effort to prove certain everyday products can be hazardous. The problem is that this does nothing to prove anything substantial.  Although these so called “facts” may seem frightening, the book is nothing more than fiction, and lacks rigorous scientific evidence.  Quite the contrary, many of the chemicals they “test” have been around for decades and have received extensive research and government agency approval.

For  example, this book generalizes all phthalates as being  dangerous; when in reality, DINP, one of the most commonly used phthalate in consumer products, has been deemed safe by multiple government agencies like the Consumer Project Safety Commission (CPSC) and the National Toxicology Program.  According to CPSC estimates, a child would have to eat more than 3,400 rubber ducks contained with DINP to exceed the save exposure limit[i].

There are many more serious risks facing our families than exposure to plastics. For instance, each year, hundreds of children have been injured or killed from vehicle accidents.  The organization KidsAndCars stated that there were 246 fatalities in 2009; unfortunately from children being left unattended or just hanging around motor vehicles.  Car safety should be considered a top priority, given all the dangers that come along with automobiles.  Something such as DINP, which has no evidence of human harm, should not even compare to the real risks children face daily.  Parents need be able to distinguish fact from fiction and know where to get accurate information on children’s safety issues.

The Child Safety Task Force has compiled a list, based on data the Center for Disease Control and the CPSC, for what should be considered the top ten real risks to kids. These include:

*Vehicle Accidents

*Drowning

*Burns

*Choking

*Playground Accidents

*Poisoning

*Head Injuries

*Electrocution

*Dangers on the Internet

Parents should be aware of all the dangers in the list above and take the necessary precautions, rather than worry over products that have been well studied and approved for use. Scaremongering books likes this one divert time, attention, and resources away from the real risks kids face.

This story has struck up a debate about a recall on Chinese jewelry and toys which contain the chemical cadmium, which is known to cause cancer and other health problems if digested.  The Associated Press reported that, “cadmium is attractive to Chinese manufacturers because it is cheap and easy to work with. But, like lead, it can hinder brain development in the very young, recent research shows.”

Congress attempted to safeguard children from the dangers of lead by placing a ban on it; however, it is important to understand that substitutes for the metal can be just as harmful.  Although cadmium is not technically banned, it is still particularly dangerous for children if sucked on or swallowed.  Once the toxic chemicals are absorbed, serious irreversible damage to the liver and kidneys can develop.  Other health problems include the delaying of brain development, which could potentially lead to learning disabilities, as well as long term brain damage.  Even in low concentrations, the chemical is still very hazardous.

In response to these threats, Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN) has insisted on a hearing over the use of metal in children’s toys.  Outraged, she is protesting for a full investigation on all products containing cadmium and urges retailers to keep these unsafe products out of their stores.  Along with Klobuchar, Senator Charles Schumer has proposed legislation to ban the metal.  The problem, Schumer says, is that “the products aren’t labeled” and “we have to prevent it when it comes in the store.” Fortunately, two of the largest US retailers, Walmart and Claire’s, are taking action by removing products that contain cadmium from their shelves.

In 2007, the Center for Disease Control (DC) released a Priority List of Hazardous Substances, and cadmium is ranked 7th out of 275. We recommend keeping your children away from toys containing cadmium and to be aware of the dangers in lead substitutes.

This week’s cadmium scares demonstrate the unintended consequences of well-intended legislation. Congress placed restrictions on both lead and phthalates in children’s products through the CPSIA but did not consider what manufacturers would replace them with.

This incident represents what can happen when one dangerous chemical is replaced by another hazardous substance. But the consequences can be even more concerning when a safe chemical is banned—which is exactly the case with phthalates. While the phthalates used in children’s products have been extensively risk assessed and approved by leading government panels, none of the alternative plasticizers have been studied by a U.S. government agency. Banning-even temporarily-a proven safe substance from our children’s products exposes them to potential harm. In order to avoid future toxic toys scares we must encourage testing on all chemicals present in our children’s products.

Last week, the hottest toy of the holiday season, the zhu zhu pet, fell victim to one of these reports. The NGO GoodGuide.com reported this toy as “toxic” claiming that there were unsafe levels of the chemical antimony present in the fur. These claims turned out to be false but the media attention created a frenzied panic among concerned parents.

In response to these allegations, the CPSC reviewed the toys and testing reports and concluded that zhus zhus were indeed safe for children. Their statement indicated that the toy is “not out of compliance with the antimony or other heavy-metal limits of the new U.S. mandatory toy standard.”

As a result, GoodGuide issued an apology stating the inaccuracies of their initial report, and noted they used a different testing methodology that is not recognized by the CSPC for determining a hazard.  It turns out they used a methodology which simply detected a presence of a chemical and did not examine exposure or risk levels.

This incident demonstrates just how powerful these reports can be in influencing parental decisions and perpetuating health scares.  Within hours of GoodGuide’s original statement, thousands of alarmed parents took to blogs and online message boards.

We commend the CPSC for their timely response in addressing these concerns. It is important for parents to be able to distinguish true risks from hype. While these “watchdog” reports may make for a good story, their information is not always the most accurate.  The CPSC completes their own independent testing and reviews to make sure products are in compliance with federal safety requirements.

For the most up to date information about toys and their safety, visit the CPSC website at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/category/toy.Html

While the PIRG report did note differences among regulations between certain phthalates, their report did not provide the reasoning behind Congress’ decision. The CPSIA recognized the important safety differences between high molecular weight phthalates (DINP, DIDP, DnOP) and low molecular weigh phthalates (DEHP, DEP, and BBP). Phthalates are not created equal and they should not be treated as such. While some animal testing has revealed that exposure to low molecular weight phthalates may cause concern over the potential for reproductive effects, regulatory authorities agree there is minimal concern for the exposure to high molecular weight phthalates. Due to their proven safety record, Congress placed only a temporary restriction on the high molecular weight phthalates and narrowed this restriction to only those toys and childcare items that can be placed in the mouth.

Regardless of what the science says about phthalates’ safety, groups like PIRG have been lobbying for years for their removal from the marketplace and perpetuating “junk science” in the media. Here are just a few examples misinformation present in PIRG’s recent report:

• In its report, PIRG cites the 2001 CHAP decision that DINP exposure may be harmful if mouthed for over 75 minutes a day, but they did not reveal that the CHAP went on to say that current exposure levels are way below this level and that “for the majority of children, the exposure to DINP from DINP containing toys would be expected to pose a minimal to non-existent risk of injury.” The CPSC went on to deny the petition to ban PVC toys after concluding that concluded that there is “no demonstrated health risk” from DINP use in toys and “no justification” for banning its use.

• The PIRG report also cites the EU ban on phthalates, however, it does not state that the EU instituted a permanent ban on phthalates a year before their comprehensive risk assessment on DINP was published.  The comprehensive risk assessment as published in the EU Official Journal states that DINP is safe and poses no risk to workers or consumers, including infants and children. Furthermore, their assessment states that no risk reduction measures are required for the General Population, Workers, or the Environment.

• PIRG also notes that traces of phthalates have been found in human bodies as a cause for concern. However, PIRG fails to put this into context omitting a basic toxicological principle—the dose makes the poison. Even water can be “toxic” in high enough doses. The presence of metabolized phthalates is not cause for alarm. CDC data indicates that DINP levels found in children are well within safe limits.

• The studies cited by PIRG that “proved” phthalates were harmful did not show causal relationships. Most of these studies are not risk assessments therefore they offer no evidence of harmful effects. To learn more about the flaws present in these types of “studies” read our expose on Shanna Swan’s recent report which claims phthalates can “feminize” male behavior.

As part of their “Trouble in Toyland” report, PIRG tested a handful of toys for presence of lead and phthalates to see if any of the toys were in violation of the CPSIA.  But in their zeal, PIRG exaggerated their findings and wrongfully interpreted the intent of the law. PIRG claimed that two of the items they tested exceed CPSIA limits on phthalates including a lunchbox which was found to contain DIDP. However, a lunchbox is not a toy and clearly not intended of being mouthed by a child; therefore, it does not violate CPSIA. Furthermore, DIDP has been repeatedly proven safe for consumer use.

According to the CPSIA, the temporary prohibition on high molecular weight phthalates will remain in effect until a scientific review is conducted by a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) on the safety of phthalates and phthalate alternatives.  At the conclusion of the CHAP, the panel will make recommendations as to whether these phthalates or any phthalate alternative should be declared a banned hazardous substance. This review will ensure that all plasticizers present in our children’s products and toys are held to the same level of safety. While phthalates like DINP and DIDP have proven to be safe in consumer applications, none of the available alternatives have been studied by a U.S. government agency.

PIRG urges the CPSC to convene a “de novo Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel free of conflict of interest.” However, with this report, PIRG is clearly seeking to influence the CHAP’s decision on phthalates. Pressure from these groups could result in serious unintended consequences.  The longer safe and tested products are kept off the shelves children will be exposed to alternative plasticizers which have not been reviewed. Instead of focusing their attention on products which have been proven safe, PIRG should be advocating for testing of those chemicals present in toys which have yet to be properly studied.

Headlines will have you believe that this study confirms everything from altering baby boys’ brains to claiming that the study demonstrates hormone disruption.  These headlines are in fact categorically false and extremely misleading as to what the study actually investigated.   This study was led by the statistician Shanna Swan and appears to be a part of her continuing preconceptions on phthalate exposure.   It is important to note there are many issues with the study methodology, analysis and collection of data that call her alleged findings into question.

When one looks at what was actually investigated, it is clear that the authors relied on data based on subjective responses from parent’s recollections and then attempted to make any associations that they could with two phthalates (DEHP and DBP).  The authors questioned mothers on their children’s play behavior using questionnaires that they modified and disclosed in the study as “not used previously” and “remain to be validated” by other researchers.  Additionally, the study did not control for other contributing factors. Past research suggests that behavior of boys and girls can be influenced by an older sibling, the type of gender roles presented in the family, and use of alcohol and tobacco during the pregnancy.  Just like in her 2005 study on phthalate exposure and reproductive development in baby boys, no cause and effect was established and the media reports have greatly exaggerated the analysis.

There is a very real danger with sensationalizing these types of flawed studies and that is that they can lead to precautionary regulations which lack scientific reasoning. There are proven threats to our children’s health that warrant our attention and studies like Swan’s detract time and resources away from addressing these very real problems.   It would be a much more valuable use of our government’s time and resources if funds were allocated to real and substantiated health risks.

Click here to learn more about phthalates from Child Safety Task Force’s president, Bob Johnson.