As Congress moves to ban phthalates from toys, parents try to make sense of conflicting research.
Comment: This ban of proven-to-be-safe chemicals is likely to hurt the very health of the children that the eco-terrorists pretend to care about. The bill was sponsored by a socialist-leaning Senator who hopes to invoke the very dangerous "precuationary principle," which is neither.
Comment: This kind of news coverage should include a factual explanation of why the stuff gets used in the first place. Lead was first used, not because toy makers want to make kids stupid, but because kids and parents like bright colors and moderate prices. Lead-based pigments offer the most color-brightness for the buck. Similarly, phthalates get used because many toys need to be flexible, and parents always want them to be moderate-cost. Vinyl plastics, made flexible by adding phthalates, are much less expensive than the alternatives. Banning all phthalates from toys will substantially raise the cost of toys.
Such a ban is still a good idea, but stories like this one should tell us the whole picture.
By the way...what about medical devices?
Comment: It is a very good idea to ban such products that can be harmful to our children's lifes.
Comment: I think it is really necessary to ban the production of toys,which can be dangerous for our children.
Comment: All toys are evil, I assume you mean.
Comment: I work for a manufacturer of children's products. One thing this bill fails to do is create a federal mandate which trumps state law. Presently, the retail chain stores each have their own safety testing protocols. While the children's product industry WANTS to make safe products for children, we are obliged to pay for and pass tests for each and every store we want to sell our product in. For small and medium-sized manufacturers, who don't have a budget to lobby Congress like Mattel does, we face a great threat of going out of business. Furthermore, it is difficult to know what is deemed safe to put in a product when it's nearly impossible to have a grasp of what in all these different protocols. It's unfortunate that the bill does not address this issue.
Comment: I am a Chemical Engineer and I am not working at the present time for a company that makes phthalates but I did at one time. To use the term as a generic "Bad Actor" is not very correct and needs to be corrected. I noted in the third page there is a list of 6 where 3 are to be permanently banned and three temporary banned. Why was the list not placed in the article. The word and the chemical "Dioxan" caused a major disruption in the Pulp and Paper industry, and for what. Because someone KNOWS what is bad for us. There is no proof.
Comment: There has been proof that Endocrine Disruptors, of which phthalates are one of many produced in mass quantities, cause serious harm to mammals' reproductive systems in-utero for 12 years now. See "Our Stolen Future" (http://www.ourstolenfuture.com/) for more information. Since then the evidence has grown stronger and stronger.
However, that is not the point. The point should be that chemical and all product manufacturers should be the ones responsible to prove their products safe, using a precautionary approach, not just merely abiding by the minimal laws in place at the time the product in introduced.
In addition, manufacturers must not use their considerable economic power to obfuscate, delay and otherwise impede the investigation of potential issues that are discovered after a product is in production merely to protect their income streams. The chemical industry has damaged consumers and the environment for long periods after issues were discovered in the past 75 years simply to maintain profits. See Bill Moyers instigative report titled "Trade Secrets" for just a few examples. There are countless products in the US that use chemicals that are banned in Europe due to known or strongly suspected health impacts, simply because the alternatives would cost a few pennies more to produce.
If a chemical is found to be an Endocrine Disruptor, have cancer causing or mutagenic effects, it should not be produced, PERIOD. The ridiculous argument that a little poison isn't bad for anybody is merely an excuse to make money at the expense of everyone but the producer. It has also been proven incorrect in the case of endocrine disruptors. I also suspect that it is also the reason why practically everyone should plan to get at least one form of cancer in their lifetimes.
I'm sick of having to sound like a nut job because our government refuses to regulate the corporations who abuse their economic power to the detriment of everyone but themselves via the corruption of the regulatory process. I should not have to worry about the chemicals that could slowly damage my young child because those chemicals should not be in production at all.
Back in the day we used to hear the expression "Godless Communists" because we in the west allow our populace to participate in the religion of their choice. I contend that "Godless Corporations", who only have the single objective of making the most profit possible, have done more damage to the world than the communists ever did.
Comment: q
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
PROJECT GREENA startup is betting free coffees and groceries will encourage reluctant recyclers.
Sponsored by
|
Sponsored by
|
Loading Menu
