Beware -- lead-laden prizes for summer reading
Another batch of toys with high lead has surfaced, this time in Muncie, Indiana, and Madison, Wisconsin. These are small plastic bendable toys that libraries have been giving away as prizes to small children for summer reading. The Muncie Star Press reported on August 5 that Indiana Health Department found that the toys have between 4 and 7 times the allowable concentration of lead. Because many children chew on their toys, they can easily ingest the lead. The Capital Times in Madison reported on August 8 that our city libraries purchased the prizes from Highsmith. Checking Highsmith’s website tonight I don’t see the suspect high lead toys. Though I do expect to see these toys soon on the US Consumer Product Safety Commission website! I am wondering how many were given away to young readers nationwide.
In March 2006 I wrote about toys that were recalled due to high lead. Most of those were metallic toys. The problem persists. In May 2006 the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued another recall of high lead charms that were enclosed in Shirley Temple DVDs, and in April children’s necklaces sold at Dollar General Stores were recalled. All these items were manufactured in China. All these incidents have occurred since the state of California sued several retailers in 2004 over high lead in costume jewelry intended for sale to children and teens.
Items are normally tested for lead only after someone has reported a problem. State health departments don’t have the resources to randomly test prizes given out by libraries. They test toys for lead after a child has been identified with high blood lead and an inspection of the home turns up no other obvious source.
I asserted in my March, 2006 blog that the problem is one of compliance on the part of toy manufacturers located in China. The manufacturers substitute lead for whatever was called for in the contract because lead is cheaper than many other substances that perform similarly. The retailers are apparently not doing much to test the products they intend to sell. The retailers in this country claim they were victimized by the manufacturer -- that’s apparently what they said in the California lawsuit. So let’s work our way back up the supply chain -- who is the importer? The importer is a middleman who works between the manufacturer and Wal-mart, JC Penny, Toys Are Us, or whoever. Then shouldn’t the importers be held liable for importing items that don’t meet US safety standards? Oh! They probably say they didn’t know about the high lead either!
The bottom line is that right now it looks like no one is being held accountable for these high lead imported toys. After a child is lead-poisoned, just recall the item and say ‘oops’.
And most of our toys are imported. Voluntary agreements with the offshore manufacturers don’t seem to be working. I think it’s time for a ‘command and control’ approach.
Caveat emptor.
Wednesday, August 9, 2006
