Chemical Concerns Continue
The big news in the industry last week was the high levels of cadmium found in children’s jewelry, based on an investigation by the Associated Press. Testing of 103 items indicated that 12% of the jewelry contained at least 10% cadmium by weight, with some pieces containing between 84%-91% cadmium. Cadmium is a known carcinogen and, like lead, it can hinder children’s brain development. Unlike lead, its use in substrate materials of children’s products is not regulated in the U.S. In fact, total cadmium in children’s metal jewelry is not specifically regulated anywhere. Soluble cadmium, the amount of cadmium that can migrate out, is regulated under ASTM F963, but only for surface coatings (painted decorations) on toys. Soluble cadmium is also regulated in Europe and elsewhere in the substrate materials of toys. The CPSC is launching an investigation, and legislation likely will be forthcoming.
Manufacturers apparently began using cadmium in place of the banned lead. This highlights a potential concern that needs to be addressed any time a chemical is banned: the substitute can be as bad as the original chemical. For example, certain phthalate plasticizers are banned in children’s toys and child care articles. Are there other types of plasticizers being used in place of these banned phthalates that are just as bad, or worse? The good news is that a Chronic Health Advisory Panel (CHAP) has been commissioned to examine not just the three phthalates under the CPSIA’s interim ban but also to examine the potential health effects of phthalate alternatives. So we should know the answer to this question within 18 months.
There are many other heavy metals that could present health hazards and may be subject to regulations as well. A bill proposed by California Congresswoman Jackie Speier includes a ban on unsafe levels of barium, antimony and cadmium, and CPSC Chairman Tenenbaum, in her keynote speech at the APEC Toy Safety Initiative/Dialogue in Hong Kong last week, encouraged manufacturers in China to refrain from using cadmium, antimony or barium in place of lead.
The U.S. toy safety standard, ASTM F963, regulates the amount of soluble arsenic, chromium, mercury, and selenium used in surface coatings and painted decorations on toys in addition to the lead, cadmium, barium, and antimony. The European toy safety standard, as well as other international standards, regulates these chemicals in the substrate material of toys as well as the surface coatings. The new European toy safety directive also restricts several other chemicals, namely aluminum, boron, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, strontium, tin, organic tin, and zinc. It’s possible that the CPSC may decide to evaluate the safety of these chemicals as well.
Another chemical being closely studied, this time by the FDA, is Bisphenol A (BPA). BPA has been used since the 1960s to make hard plastic bottles (including baby bottles), sippy cups, and linings of food and beverage cans. The FDA has long declared that BPA is safe for adults and children - yet reports of potential health effects have resulted in legislation in some states banning its use in certain items such as baby bottles and containers for infant formula or baby food. Amid growing public pressure, many baby bottle manufacturers voluntarily stopped using BPA. Just last week, the FDA acknowledged that there is “some concern” with BPA causing adverse health effects in children, and they are now “taking a much closer look.” I think we can safely expect some federal legislation regarding BPA in children’s food containers in the not-too-distant future.
Regardless of what regulatory actions are taken, it’s important that any ban or restriction on a chemical be scientifically based and appropriate to the product category. New legislation must not be based on scare tactics or public pressure, and test methodology and claims of harm must be sound. No one wants another Zhu Zhu Pets scare, which was based on inappropriate testing. Also, it’s important to consider the effect of any chemical ban on the products in which it has been used. Cadmium was used as a substitute for lead in children’s jewelry because it has similar characteristics, was not banned, and was inexpensive. There are other chemical alternatives, but they are more expensive. We must realize that we may need to pay more for “safer” products in the future. And we must take steps to ensure that the alternatives are not just as dangerous.
