They Say
NYPIRG, which is an acronym for “New York Public Interest Research Group” and not an ancient Hebrew word meaning “bummer”, tested a bunch of toys for toxic materials. And they found nothing wrong! Right?
WRONG.
A third of the 1,500 toys NYPIRG tested contained “‘medium’ to ‘high’ concentrations of toxic chemicals.” Oh, but they didn’t test any cool toys that you might actually want to buy. Right?
WRONG!
The Disney Fairies Fold Out Chair and Sleeping Pad had “dangerous levels of mercury and bromine,” according to published reports.
Well I
Honestly, I try not to worry so much about lead levels in toys as I do about lead levels in everything else. Paint dust. Some car seat covers that are embroiled with bromine. BPA is in canned food, almost all of our food comes wrapped and packaged in plastic. Heck, I buy bulk but I still haven’t found a good solution for bringing certain bulk things home in anything but plastic. I mean, I guess I could take my glass canisters and weigh them and then subtract that from the final weight with the lentils or rice or oats or whatever but…seriously? I reuse the plastic and my health food store recycles them but still! It’s plastic.
My children play with mostly natural fiber toys because that’s all I buy for them but my son is obsessed with Hot Wheels and super hero action figures (that grandma and grandpa have supplied.) He’s too old to put them in his mouth and I make sure I wash his hands before he eats so I’m doing the best I can while still respecting his wishes.
The Melissa and Doug thing is troubling. Last year they released a statement promising that they had stricter safety standards.
I’m wondering if they are using the old standards or the new ones that will put a lot of companies out of business. It sounds like NYPIRG already knows of these regulations and think they should be stricter, which I guess is good for keeping kids safe, but if all these companies tank you’ll be making your kids toys yourself. I suggest a button on a string, milk bottle caps, and boxes. I remember playing with such low cost toys at my Grandfather’s house, who was raised in the depression.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122696993087535701.html
My toddler’s new thing this week is carrying her toys around in her mouth. I figured her M&D toys were safe, but… psyche! Maybe I should start carving her toys out of hunks of wood.
I had my Melissa and Doug eyes opened last christmas. I was touting them to everyone I knew….for some reason I thought they were all handmade in the US. Nope!
I still love M&D but I don’t think they are the Messiah anymore
bill, don’t forget that autism, etc. is being screened for much more than in the past. At least a part of this increase is due to this, and also due to the broadening definition of autism.
As far as using BPA-free bottles – don’t forget to avoid canned food also. It is very unlikely that a significant amount of BPA will leach into the liquid in a bottle (unless the liquid is hot, or is microwaved), but canned food has a much higher concentration.
Sorry for going off subject, but I can’t believe how many people refuse to give their kids bottles with BPA in them, but have no problem with canned food.
Mary, I think those are exactly the questions parents need to have answered to really make informed choices.
Mary- that is such a great and thoughtful comment and series of questions. Wonderfully articulated.
Bill, let me clarify, I’m not being snarky; I really WOULD like to see a study. Because I think that’s the problem with this PIRG research: we don’t know what it means. With BPA, for instance, I know how it interferes with DNA methylation, I know that’s a fundamental developmental process, and I’ve seen enough studies conducted by very smart scientists to convince me that BPA is bad, bad stuff. So I buy BPA-free baby bottles. But with this I don’t even know where to start.
Let’s see: I now know that lots of toys contain potential toxins. But I don’t know which toys contain which toxins (unless I limit myself strictly to the list of OKed ones here, which seems like a paranoid and unrealistic way to parent). I don’t know which toxins at which levels are bad, and in what context: Is it okay for my kid to play with a Melissa & Doug xylophone as long as she doesn’t chew on it? And in a lot of cases, I don’t know what these chemicals do, and how that compares to the potential effects of all the other things my kid is inadvertently and inevitably exposed to on a daily basis. You mention autism. Do you know how many, many potential causes there are? Even if you discount the vaccine theory (which I do), there are all kinds of things that could be in play: genetic predispositions, diet, environmental pollutants, a widening understanding of what actually constitutes autism, and yes, maybe toys. Right now we have no idea which of these factors is really important and which is a red herring. I certainly don’t have a shred of proof that because my daughter has a Melissa & Doug xylophone, she is going to be autistic. And I worry that this is how parents will interpret the PIRG study: “Oh my god, I gave my child this toy and now she’s sick. It’s my fault!”
Of course I have. And if there’s a scientific link between these toxins and those disorders, that would be horrible. Is there a link? Can you show me a study?
On the other, if a third of toys contain “medium to high” levels of toxins, why aren’t tons of children — say, a third — getting sick from them?
have you noticed the skyrocketing rates of autism and other similar disabilities in recent decades?
I was reading this report that the toys our children play with contain more dangerous chemicals that are contained in what we eat. This post will definitely increase awareness of the cons of buying such toys
On one hand, this is scary. On the other, if a third of toys contain “medium to high” levels of toxins, why aren’t tons of children — say, a third — getting sick from them? I’m sure the state PIRGs have the best intentions, but sometimes it seems that research like this exists solely to cause paranoia (and thus ensure the continued existence of PIRGs).