Congress Bans Some Phthalates in Children's Toys | Newsweek Health

Toy Story

Newsweek Web Exclusive

See All

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Toy companies, which typically get customers' complaints before the government does, are required to report problems to the CPSC, which can issue a recall. Less than 1 percent of toys sold in the U.S. each year are recalled, according to Keithley; typically, recalls are for defects, such as one earlier this month of remote-controlled helicopters that posed a fire and burn hazard. But they can also be for standards violations, such as parts that are a choking hazard or paint that contains too much lead. "We don't hesitate to remove potentially dangerous products from the marketplace," says Julie Vallese, senior CPSC spokeswoman. "The CPSC's core mission is to protect children and families."

The bill passed by Congress would also double the budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, criticized last year for its handling of lead-containing products from China, to $136 million by 2014. And it would require product-compliance testing by independent laboratories. The TIA is preparing a toy-safety certification program, and it will ask the American National Standards Institute to accredit laboratories. The legislation does not specify how often toys should be tested.

Because government is only now getting around to banning phthalates from toys, TIA officials haven't tracked how many toys contain phthalates, nor do they publish a list of phthalate-containing products. "Parents don't know which toys are the worst offenders because there's no labeling," says Sarah Janssen, a senior fellow at the National Resources Defense Council. She notes that the European Union, Argentina, Mexico, Japan and Israel have already put restrictions on the use of phthalates. "The U.S. is really behind," she says.

Meanwhile, this week the NRDC filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., to force the CPSC to disclose records of its communications with toy manufacturers and chemical companies about phthalates. "In the past, they may have been relying on incomplete or one-sided evidence from the industry," says Aaron Colangelo, senior attorney for the NRDC. He notes that ExxonMobil funded the research that formed the CPSC opinion that phthalates were safe.

The CPSC declined to comment on the lawsuit, but the TIA's Keithley responded in an e-mail that he's unaware of any contact between ExxonMobil and the CPSC. He added that last year his organization commissioned an independent search of the scientific literature on phthalates, which found no studies indicating that the phthalate used in toys could be hazardous.

So far toy-industry officials are not considering allowing parents to exchange old phthalate-containing products for new ones. "We don't anticipate that there would be a recall of the old toys," says Keithley. "We hadn't really thought about that at all."

« Prev Page

Posted By: dgeejr @ 08/06/2008 1:42:11 PM

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.

Member Comments

Posted By: NUMBerger @ 08/08/2008 8:23:25 AM

All toys are evil, I assume you mean.
Posted By: NUMBerger @ 08/08/2008 8:22:27 AM

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.
Posted By: dgeejr @ 08/06/2008 1:42:11 PM

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.