Strollerderby

Thank you so much for posting this!

Thanks for the post.

I understand the frustration, but I can sort of see where this crazy regulation comes from. One of the links states that a company should be able to test a vat of paint instead of each individual toy. However, it is possible that combing 2 non-toxic substances could create a toxic substance. The only way to really know is to test the individual product.

Plus, once the US puts a law together, they feel responsible for the execution, which is why they are asking the toys to be certified by one of the US-approved agencies.

Also, I am a little reluctant to say that a small company that produces "organic" toys is automatically safe. That is like saying that herbal remedies are safer than standard drugs, when often they are less safe because they require so much less testing.

Maybe one way around this is to allow non-certified toys to enter the market, without a label saying they are certified. This is kind of how small farms that can't get an "organic" certification because of cost can still sell. However, I guess that would open the door for the larger companies also.

Once you start allowing exceptions, big companies will know how to work it to allow their toys to be accepted without testing. I guess we need to decide whether we want to be more strict and have fewer toxic toys but also fewer companies that can sell in the US, or be less strict and allow more toxic toys but more companies can sell here.

Sorry for the long post, but I used to work in an industry that was heavily regulated, and I know that there is always a trade off.

Big companies will find a way around everything anyway. They have teams of lawyers, lobbyists and plenty of cash. If these regulaions go through as written they will be the only players in the toy producing world. The trade off we are getting here is that there will not be a single decent toy left on the shelf.

"The only way to really know is to test the individual product." at $500 a toy? Then if a toy has numerous components it is $500 a component? That means to test your average wooden baby rattle it's $1000-1500. Every time you get a new shipment of wood and paint you have to re-test?  Who is going to bother with making wooden baby rattles that sell for $5 each?? We'll just get the plastic ones from China that are produced in the millions and those will cost $10 each by the way because the cost of testing is going to be passed on to the consumer. That's what I call a great trade off?  

And who is going to enforce this? Who is going to make sure that the Mattel, Fisher Price and Hasbro (for example)toys are truly lead free? How trustworthy is the certificate they had produced by a testing center in Ningbo? How trustworthy is any certificate? Random testing is what caught the "bad" guys in the first place and will be the only way to keep catching them, certificate or no!!

small company that produces "organic" toys is automatically safe. An "organic" toy is not going to contain lead. By definition these are made from wood or some other natural material, cotton, wool silk etc. Phalatates, the other substance being tested, is also not applicable since it is only in plastics.  In terms of choking hazard the new law states compliance with very specific age/size guidelines that are the only well written part of this new law. All of this now has to be clearly states on the toy & packaging.

It's a great idea to write a law to protect our children but a large part of this law is unenforceable and counter productive.

You wouldn't have to test when you got a new shipment of wood and paint, but you would have to have some way of knowing that the wood/paint was the same (within specification). Either there would be some internal inspection method, no-change agreement with the supplier, etc.

If you read the suggested statement from the Handmade Toy Alliance, all toys made within the US would be exempt, because we are one of the "trusted countries." Weren't there toys made in the US that were recently found to have high levels of lead? This is the problem with making exception and writing that into law.

Unfortunately, this is the downside to regulation. Things get more expensive, and small companies have a hard time staying in business. The downside of adding exceptions is that you then don't really know how a toy is made. (Even in small, well-meaning companies, they probably don't have the resources for the kind of supply-chain management that would guarantee safe components. That is why I said that they are not automatically safe.) I guess that is where the random auditing comes in. I admit this would be a good way to catch stuff, even if it may be after a toy is on the shelf.

And yes, this regulation (even with the changes proposed by the Handmade Toy Alliance) will most likely mean the end to the $5 rattle. But isn't this what we are talking about? Too many cheaply made things of low-quality.

The more I think about it, I would personally prefer a kind of an optional certification (like organic foods) where they could be a label that states the product was certified to be non-toxic, organic, whatever name is most descriptive. One may argue that we shouldn't let any toxic toys into the US. However, some people feel pesticides are very toxic, but we still allow fruit with pesticides. We just have an option to buy otherwise. (Or from small producers we feel comfortable with.)

I hope I am not sounding argumentative. I really like discussing things like this, because they are always more complex than how they seem on the surface. (I am a scientist, and we really like to "argue" about stuff, which I know can come across as being obnoxious.)

Beautifully handmade wooden baby rattles from Camden Rose who make beautiful things wholesale for $5 and retail for $10. Cheap stuff from China in PLASTIC cost 20 cents to make, wholesale for $1.50 and retail for $10 with 75% off at Walmart so $2.50 on sale. THAT is what we are trying to stop but that is not what will stop. That will go on but Camden Rose will struggle to pay for testing. I am baffeled by the lack of support for the small companies who have for years tried to bring natural toys to the attention of main stream. This law is like throwing the baby our with the bath water!

Not all the suggestions from the Handmade Toys are full-proof. But strict laws with self-regulation, labeling and vast random testing is THE ONLY way this is enforcable.

Shannon, I didn't know that France and Germany didn't use BPA. I know that the European Union recently (around August) came out with a statement saying that current BPA levels posed no cause for concern. (The recent statements by the FDA-requested panel were much stronger than anything coming out of Europe.) I know sometimes the individual countries require more stringent demands. Could you post a link? Thanks.

Banning BPA completely would have a huge impact, mostly because almost all canned food (with the exception of Eden Foods) uses BPA to line the cans. (This is by far people's greatest exposure to BPA.) It is not only large companies. Almost all small companies that can foods use BPA also. I personally try to avoid canned foods as much as possible, but I know that is not true for every income level.

Even in Europe, they have acceptable levels of lead and mercury. They do not completely ban products that contain any level of these toxins.

Andrea, I have to admit I have never seen a rattle cheaper than $10, since I buy toys from local stores that sell what they think are safe toys. (Although I do have some Melissa & Doug stuff, which was recently found to be toxic. Ugh.)

I'm not sure who you addressed your comment to, about not supporting small companies. I for one support them buy buying from them. I am really just trying to discuss the difficulty in adding regulation in this country. I don't completely understand what you are proposing. Is it that we adopt self-certification with random testing across the board, or is that only for small companies and large companies have to submit to third-party testing?

As far as I understand, even in the European regulation, there is no difference in what large companies and small companies have to do. (If I am wrong about this, please let me know. I just can't find any info saying otherwise.)

Shannon, yes I totally agree about getting rid of BPA in canned foods. The amazing thing is, the media coverage has focused so much on plastic bottles, which give you nowhere near the BPA exposure of canned foods. I know so many people who have given up their Nalgene bottles, but are still using canned foods on a regular basis, not even knowing of the exposure.

For canned tomatoes, there are some products (like Pomi) that come in a tetrapak. (Which is considered safe for now.) They tend to be more expensive, though.