The CPSC, Zhu Zhu Pets, and Your Child
Children’s safety during the world’s biggest toy season has once again been brought to the forefront. The “Zhu Zhu Pet” example being the most widely discussed instance this year as far as what is and is not safe for your kids. This instance is actually the least of the U.S. Consumer Protection Agency’s problems, and ours as parents, in protecting our kids from harm. In the following two part report, the reader will be able to identify three basic problems with any effort to stem the flow of potentially dangerous products from reaching their children. Between the CPSC, business, PR and mass marketing, and our own lack of knowledge in these areas, it is possible to suggest that protecting our children effectively is far from a reality.
Government’s Diminishing Capability
Our recent articles about the Zhu Zhu Pet incident where an independent company called Good Guide reported (as it turned out inconclusively) that at least one of these toys was outside safety levels for latent metals contamination. The defensive and almost instantaneous response from what I will call “mommy blogger experts”, as well as probable principals in the industry, prompted me to take a look at this whole “toxic” situation. I found a very transparent and revealing report(PDF) addressed to the Congressman John D. Dingle and various other legislators, from Nancy Nord (lower left), acting Chairperson for the Consumer Products Safety Commission. Just so the reader knows, John D. Dingell is one of the people who created the CPSC.
In this report Nord essentially outlines the commission’s situation with regard to basically providing a fraction (it boils down to this) of safety for children. This document is fairly comprehensive and indicative of a much greater problem than one little hamster toy, regardless how popular it is. Simply put, the governmental arm which protects your kids from various degrees of danger is overwhelmed and to a large extent appears to be reeling under the weight of possibly questionable products.
Much of my report is speculative, I will admit, but from evaluating this document, and the sincerity with which Nord addresses questions from Dingell, is is fairly easy to access this agency’s dire need for help and what can be termed “a damage control” effort which was (and perhaps still is) underway at the highest levels of government. Here are some facts which might be gleaned from this important document:
- The agency has been hampered by slow or non-existent funding to the point where many operations have taken a back seat to “prioritized” agency activity – there is an economic component to this problem
- The agency appears to be overwhelmed not only by under-staffing, but by the weight of red tape and administrative resources that impede their effectiveness. This is not stated but implied.
- To large extent, the agency has also been overwhelmed by the requests from businesses and independent laboratories for “exceptions” for certain products with regard to safety. Overwhelmed is implied rather than stated.
- The agency has been hard pressed just to certify third party labs to effect the new laws for child safety.
- The agency, at the moment this document was drafted, had no idea how to even test for the existence of phthalates, a key toxin our kids face.
- Besides all the other implications (which are numerous) there is an “economic” component in the decision making process which, if addressed in the extreme, could lead to even more dangerous products being introduced to our kids.
Needless to say, the ramifications of all this are far reaching. However, I do not think it is inappropriate to suggest that the CPSC, given the limitations on them now, is only capable of providing a “light filtering” effort with regard to keeping hazardous toys out of the hands of our children. Let me stress something here. This is my opinion based on my experiences in manufacturing, quality assurance, process engineering, and research and development for various companies. I would not claim however, to be an “authority” on the subject however. That being said, I am sure of one thing. The average consumer has little or no idea of either the extraordinary numbers of toys and products this agency oversees, and especially not the business processes and practices involved on the supply end of this equation. To be blunt here, even American companies often hedge these rules and others as closely as they possibly can. Think about this.
The Inherent Danger of Rodents
I have no doubt what-so-ever that Nancy A. Nord and her associates within the Consumer Products Safety Commission are diligent and dedicated to the utmost to doing their all important job. This is revealed all through here report to Congress. I also empathize with her position, and unenviable one. The sheer numbers and types of products on shelved, in warehouses and on container ships headed for the US is staggering by anyone’s account. As for the Zhu Zhu issue, there are farm more unknowns than quantitative and scientific answers regardless of what mommy bloggers and marketers report on Twitter – or even supposed “tweets” from regulatory agencies. You read that right by the way, many of the very people promoting these little fuzzy urchins are actually relying on Twitter for reliable answers. But a boat load or two of hamsters are the least of our worries.
I would like to quote from one section of this report which reveals not only the complexity, scope and importance of this issue, but the “damage control” aspect I mentioned earlier. Nord’s various staff reported back to her in answer to Congressman Dingle’s pointed questions. I assume the following part is from the Executive Director of Compliance:
“CPSC’s safety work must be prioritize to deal with the most significant risks…Timely implementation is important, but the flexibility to prioritize our work to deal with the most serious risks is equally important to maximize effectiveness and do the greatest good with the resources we have been given.”
When the agency tasked with regulating what your children are exposed to “begs off” in such a manner, suggesting that “the greatest good” is maybe all that can be accomplished, it is easy to understand why we hear reports that Zhu Zhu Pets have a clean bill of health so soon after the scare started. The agency is in a big bind for the following reasons and probably many more we cannot see.
- One suggested remedy for solving CPSC’s dilemma was to allow product exclusions for products when “soluble” levels did not exceed 600ppm, where the prescribed method was for total lead and ANY chance that lead (or presumably other metals) could be absorbed. (Practical Solution: Commission Discretion)
- The types and numbers of products already on shelves and in warehouses which could fall under the “retroactive” regulations are probably unfeasible given CPSC’s situation (at least in March, 2009). The agency was suggested this in several areas of the document. The essence of this argument was not only about the agency’s limitations, but the economic and environmental impact of dealing with products already in use and etc.
- Bureau Veritas, the worldwide testing company approved by CPSC and used by Zhu Zhu Pets parent company Cepia to ensure the safety of these toys, presents a three fold problem. One, the testing facility which approved these toys is in Hong Kong (PDF). Two, the CPSC having already approved them, cannot readily question their own decision by doing further testing to refute those used to “okay” the toys now. And lastly, CPSC’s relative support of the testing for apparently European consumption is puzzling.
- The entire document as a request for discretionary license so that the agency can perform this “risk assessment” protocol, and essentially a request for legislation to “back up” on the strict nature of the original laws passed to protect your kids.
There are so many other implications within this document, and other legislation this reporter is not yet privy to, which limit this report accordingly. A few things are abundantly apparent in my opinion however. Bureau Veritas is hiring people in Hong Kong, some of whom are on a 3 month contractual basis, indicating temporary help to handle the holiday crunch. There are far more pressing safety issues for the consumer than a few million furry rodents, and subsequently for the CPSC, as jewelry and other products which are accessible by kids are a far more acute problem (this is evident in government documents, mandates and even in the licenses awarded companies like Bureau Vertias).
Conclusion and Preamble to Part II
The amount of research needed to be properly informed by any consumer is daunting to say the least. Just compiling some of this data for this article has taken 10 hours already, not including writing it. The point of these articles is to call to people’s attention not only the dangers we face as parents and citizens (the CPSC has already opened the gates for Bureau Veritas and some companies with exceptions), but to educate as to what we will likely be required to do in order to do our jobs as parents and members of society. The United States Government is broke. The fear and confusion of some of these officials is so evident, no matter how skilled and professional they may be. Funding these monumental efforts in governing, in the face of so many pressures from business, other officials, and consumers too, is becoming an impossible task.
We have looked at the bureaucratic and regulatory end of this issue a little bit here. It should be evident for those who take this article on face value, and especially for those with the time to grasp these issues, that the company that called Zhu Zhu Pets into question has done us all a huge favor. This is true even if their methods might have been flawed (which I am beginning to believe they were not actually). Part two of this report will deal with the business, marketing, PR aspect of this “rodent” scare. In particular the pressures being levied against these agencies by groups intent on achieving their own ends. Tremendous forces are at work to put products in the hands of your children and grown ups alike, you all know this. Just looking at mommy boggers, Twitter, and legitimate PR and marketing firms like Marketing with Moms and its parent BSM Media – the interactions, misinformation, and opinion power they wield with their methods, is reason to take pause for anyone.
I leave you with a preview of Part II, and hopefully we will have contacted members of Congress and other representatives of the institutions indicated so far by tomorrow. Until then, please understand that this is no witch hunt, or an effort to vilify anyone. The majority of the people involved are just trying to do their prospective jobs. The problem is conflicting methods, mis-communication, and disparate goals – when in this case the goal should be your child’s well being. That is not something a mom or the government trusts to a Tweet.
About the Author
Phil Butler is editor-in-chief of Everything PR and senior partner at Pamil Visions PR. He’s a widely cited authority on beta startups, search engines and public relations issues, and he has covered tech news since 2004. Phil wrote in the past for ReadWriteWeb, Mashable, Profy, SitePoint, Search Engine Journal, AltSearchEngines. Follow Phil on Twitter or send him an email at phil [at] pamil-visions [dot] com.
There is enough warning in the article, and a big big warning at the beginning of the trailer, stating RESTRICTED 
Please put a warning on the trailer. There is very disturbing material in it. Not fair to watch thinking it ...
Sleeky20x, I know everyone hates a price increase. But honestly, do you feel the new services and content justify it? ...
i sold my x box 360 a few months ago. i loved xbox but ive saved about $300 since i ...
I think this is a problem Ive always played Live and i really like the how the prices are now ...
Did the Old Spice campaign result in increased sales? 
John, You are correct, take me to your leader. LOL
Always,
Phil (I think therefore I am) 
Comment by Eric H on 9 December 2009:
If you are really concerned about jobs, about American manufacturing, and about the onslaught of nonsense with which the CPSC has to deal (mostly as a result of CPSIA, but also several other over-reactions to the media hype rather than the reality of the relevant biochemistry), then please, please, for the love of Gaia, surf on over to Rick Woldenberg’s Learning Resources Blog. Rick has a background in chemistry and law, and is trying to keep people employed in a company that makes learning materials for children. CPSC is overwhelmed because Congress basically threw every manufacturer — including responsible manufacturers — under the bus in response to the lead scares of 2007. In the end, the companies that caused the problem (and most of that was due to design, not China, so quit flogging that horse) are getting away with little more than a stern lecture, and the artisans with integrity are trying to figure out how to cope with a hopelessly confusing law whose scope was too wide, and for which the CPSC was not given any latitude for interpretation.
Start in January 2009 (just a few months after the idiotic law was passed) and discover how Rick had pointed out that it would prove to be overwhelming, was rebuffed by idiotic, tinpot dictator law makers like Henry Waxman, and in the end was proved right.
http://learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html
Comment by Phil Butler on 9 December 2009:
Eric, What is your purpose here? If we even start to delve into the aches and pains of the testing and manufacturing community here, I think we will be overwhelmed Eric. If you send me something condensed I will be happy to use it. What you are accomplishing here is a watering down of the very thing you profess to want to solve I think? Lead scare, and the boogie man all under consideration, the US Army Corps of Engineers built levies too – and other important advances in modern engineering
Phil
Comment by Eric H on 9 December 2009:
I am not sure that I have a purpose here other than to react to the misinformation I have seen. About 1 year ago, I began subscribing to and reading everything the CPSC issued in support of CPSIA. You are just now coming to the game and you are making points that we were making a year ago. It isn’t a mystery why the CPSC is overwhelmed: Congress did them in with CPSIA. CPSIA cast a net so wide that every little toy and children’s clothing manufacturer came under a rigorous testing program which was going to be so expensive that it was going to close them all down, opening the markets even further to large manufacturers whose production was all overseas. CPSIA’s regime was so complex that even professional engineers and lawyers were baffled and confused by it, so the comments started rolling in to CPSC. Congress refused to reconsider the law, instead blaming the acting Chairwoman because she was a Bush appointee (it should be noted that this was not a political issue until Waxman and his minions started pulling that little stunt – the law passed Congress with only 1-4 dissenting votes, depending on which vote you want to cite, and was signed by Bush). Since then, Obama appointed new board members and nothing has improved. Basically, the CPSC has extended stays of enforcement on most of the provisions until they could sort this all out.
One of the more aggravating things about the whole affair has been the stance of the public interest groups like PIRG, Consumer’s Union, Public Citizen, and other “children’s advocacy” groups. It turned out that these people actually got invitations to the “hearings” (they were very one-sided witch hunts) and advocated very, very hard lines on the eeeeevil manufacturers. After the law came out and we started pointing out the unintended consequences (among other things, that it created transaction costs that favored the larger manufacturers like Mattel whose design flaws and manufacturing processes caused the problem in the first place, and would bury small toymakers like John’s Greco woodworking), the interest groups began a disinformation campaign. They had the ear of Congress, we didn’t. They started labeling all of us as “mommy bloggers”, “a disinformation campaign waged by large manufacturers”, and so on. They held press conferences and claimed that the crisis was all manufactured, that the CPSC had broad discretion (they don’t), and they imbued everything with rhetoric designed to frighten and disinform.
Sound familiar? This whole Zhu Zhu pets thing is a replay of the events of a year ago. A public interest group led by a political scientist misused a technical piece of equipment (an XRF gun), and published misleading results with a heated rhetorical message as a publicity stunt. When people who are more knowledgeable about the testing and law responded, the mommy blogger and sock puppet accusations began flying. And who is getting buried in this? Another small manufacturer. Is there anything to it? Nope.
I have to conclude that you are sadly underinformed on these issues.
You also seem to be under the impression that 100% testing of all children’s products by heavily staffed government labs, and the complete ban of every substance regardless how small the risk, should be a goal. A complete refutation of your entire post would take pages. Let me address a few, though:
“CPSC’s relative support of the testing for apparently European consumption is puzzling.” No it isn’t. There are US manufacturers who export products to Europe, and there are European manufacturers who make great, safe, non-plastic toys for export here, and both are already trying to comply with European testing standards. In order to comply with US standards, they now have to pay for CPSIA-mandated testing at CPSC-approved facilities in order to sell here. They have to pay for twice the testing, and at no — 0, zip, nada — benefit to the consumer for the double testing. If CPSC adopts the European standards (many of which are more rigorous), then at least it eliminates the redundancy.
The CPSC did not beg off; they correctly interpreted the law and the test results. It has already been explained to you, yet you keep insisting that there is something nefarious here. The CPSIA increased CPSC’s funding authorization, but Congress failed to then give them the money. But Congress also burdened them with two more pieces of legislation last session (one involving gasoline containers and another pool safety, as I recall). Both of those safety issues have involved *actual deaths of children* in the past few years. The CPSIA, however, imposes a huge, complex, widely targeted set of regulations, most of which have involved no deaths. Not a single child has died from lead poisoning from a toy intended for children in the past few years. Not one. Nor have any died from phthalate poisoning. Yet those two issues are easily taking most of the resources and, unfortunately, getting all of the media attention because “lead poisoning” is something that reporters can understand and it sounds scary. Ditto phthalates and antimony.
There is lead in the brass parts inside a tire valve. Unless children are going to start dismantling them and eating those parts, there is no way to ingest it. But they are now covered under the CPSIA, and the children’s bicycle industry is very concerned. Child obesity is on the rise, and this law is doing all it can to remove bicycles from the market. Years ago, children’s groups asked motorcycle and ATV manufacturers to make smaller vehicles for children to ride because they were getting injured on the larger, more powerful adult machines, and the industry did so. Today, they have all been pulled off the market and children are going back to riding adult machines. Why? CPSIA and the idea that no lead is acceptable in any children’s product, no matter how remote the risk. So, 100% testing and elimination of irrelevant risks does not result in more safety, it results in less.
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 9 December 2009:
Eric, please read the comments policy we have in place and refrain from provoking or offending me from now on. I do appreciate your ideas, just don’t come to promote and sell third parties here. You are entitled to your opinion, but note that Phil and I own this site, and that we reserve the right to delete comments at our own discretion. I edited the first paragraph of your comment where you attacked me. The rest is valid.
Comment by Phil Butler on 9 December 2009:
Hi Eric, Many of your points are very valid, and it is obvious you have spend a great deal of time researching this as you already iterated. I will be addressing and even using some of your data in a post coming up. Also related some of your concerns to the CPSC Director of Information as he had written us any way. As for the insults, this needs to stop. People have come here to call Mihaela everything under the sun when all she did was report this news and follow up with some due parental diligence. If people cannot understand this journalistic/editorial style they need to go back to school or go complain at any one of 500 other outlets which reported on this.
You still exhibit a tone which is neither appropriate nor needed. Of course anyone is under informed compared to someone on in the midst of being immersed in this mountain of paperwork. This variable does not need to be exploited and used as an advantage to force your opinion (however substantial). I think anyone would have a little catching up to do. One thing I do not for sure. Given the numbers of Zhu Zhu Pets out there, and the evident concern exhibited by so many, a little more diligence and even effort could be applied by everyone, even consideration.
As for mommy bloggers and the like. Like any other niche, there are those who are predatory and otherwise (shall I say focused) on their ends. I know this too, no one on this planet writes a news story and 10 minutes later gets hammered over the head for being everything but a decent human being, while at the same time PR companies are doing damage control on Twitter and other social media networks to the tune of “calming the masses” with Tweets for God’s sake. If these pets are freaking ambrosia, if they are the unknown cure for cancer, the divisive, nasty, underhanded manipulation of otherwise caring and concerned moms and consumers deserves a lot worse than I can give them. We shall see the end of that rabbit hole – but it smells mighty fishy to me.
To an extend, we are what we condone. We all ride a razor blade onto which gravity exerts a massive force. The balance we need being the hardest thing to maintain. One of the only imbalances I can think of which seems good and kind in this world is a mother’s love and concern for her child and her family. In this case the balance is tilted so that Mom is allowing little Johnny to play in the street. This is my view. Worse yet, when one Mommy questions the safety or a thing, another “educated” one calms her saying; “Here, have a cookie, by the time you are through you will be right as rain.”
I know for scientific types, this sort of ethereal or philosophical dogma seems silly. But, I have done my service the mathematical circuit too, and comparatively, that stage cannot yet define a circle exactly. I say this because I care about what things mean to you and others, I want to understand and to be inquisitive, and I want others to know where I come from. The truth is the end as you say, but we can get there faster helping one another.
Always,
Phil – Out
Comment by John on 10 December 2009:
Hi Phil- As somebody who has spent countless hours watching CPSC webcasts, reading CPSIA documents and trying to help other small businesses understand what they need to do to be CPSIA compliant, I appreciate that you are trying to assess this and report on it. The problem though is you are going off of info from March, and so much has changed since then.
For instance, you say, “When the agency tasked with regulating what your children are exposed to “begs off” in such a manner, suggesting that “the greatest good” is maybe all that can be accomplished, it is easy to understand why we hear reports that Zhu Zhu Pets have a clean bill of health so soon after the scare started.”
I think background on the situation the CPSC has been put in as a result of the CPSIA is abig help. The CPSIA removes the element of risk assessment. The CPSC has staff who are professionals at assessing risk- that’s their job. They are being asked to enforce a law that has almost nothing to do with what they are all about. Mandatory 3rd party testing doesn’t make an item more safe- for instance, my unfinished wooden toys are still unfinished wood, and testing them doesn’t change that. So the CPSC was trying to explain their resources with which they determine actual risk were being detracted through the CPSIA where no risk was involved. To help ease this, the CPSC has since issued guidance that some materials are inherently within the allowed standards and are not required to be tested for lead.
That in itself sounds great, but the CPSC isn’t the only tasked with staffing the CPSIA crusade. The law grants authority to State Attorney Generals to enforce the CPSIA in their states. Chairperson Tenenbaum has stated in Congressional Testimony that she has regular conference calls with the state AG’s telling them not to enforce certain aspects, such as the testing during the stay. But the problem (1 of many) is you really have 50 different AG’s to answer to. Mattel recently had a conversation with Commissioner Adler explaining they had to hire outside lawyers to help them interpret this law, so I have no faith that 50 SAG’s will be on the same page as the CPSC.
There is a very, very steep learning curve to come up to speed on the CPSIA, and I assure you if you thought 10 hours was a lot, you are really only scratching the surface. Some things to look over that will help:
- The actual CPSIA doc;
- The CPSA, which the CPSIA supercedes in some cases;
- ASTM F963, a toy safety doc that prior to the CPSIA had been considered industry guidelines, but is now mandatory. You’ll have to buy a copy from ASTM.org though- same as the grandmother who makes toys from yarn and other fabric;
- Rick Woldenberg’s blog that Eric noted. Rick has testified to the CPSC on several occasions and has fantastic info;
- CPSC Webcasts of: The CPSC brass ruling, the CPSC considering the extension of the stay on 3rd party testing & implementation of an incident database;
- Myth vs. Fact on the Handmade Toy Alliance site.
I think those will give a really good idea on some of the scope of what’s going on with the CPSIA and the trouble the CPSC is having with its implementation. The Handmade Toy Alliance has 5 of our Board members attending the CPSC’s CPSIA workshops over the next 2 days, after which hopefully there will be some really good news to report on.
One last thing I’d like to comment on is your apparent dislike for Twitter. I’m really not sure why you have a problem with somebody ‘tweeting’ something, even the CPSC. Is it the source or the platform you dislike? The platform used to disseminate information isn’t nearly as important to me as the source of that information. For a PR based news site, I expected you would be more welcoming of this platform with the way it has taken off in the business world. Congressmen, CPSC staff and Commissioners and news agencies are among those that have an active, responsible Twitter feed. If Commissioner Nord Tweets something, I read it just as closely as if she posted it on her blog or stated it during a CPSC meeting.
Does Twitter have useless info? Of course it does. But not all tweets should be shrugged off- you need to consider the source.
Kindest Regards,
John
Comment by Rob Wilson on 10 December 2009:
I am very disappointed by this article and that of Mihaela (which seems to be closed to comments?). First, please know that my comments are not intended to provoke anything other than thought and balance.
I am not here to defend Zhu Zhu pets (although I don’t agree with the Good Guides findings or your interpretations); personally, I would never purchase such products for my children, or anything like this from any company.
I am not here to defend the CPSC, although I find it incredible that you can take a document (the CPSC response to Dingell) that shows an agency under extreme stress due to a massive law that no one understands, (not you, not I, not the CPSC, not the Good Guide, not our legislators, not even Mattel’s team of lawyers) and turn it back against the CPSC instead of understanding that a major problem is the legislation itself.
I trust that your seemingly strong opinions about the Zhu Zhu affair stem from a sincere desire for safe, quality products for our children. I want you to know that to the extent this is so, we are on the same side (albeit approaching it from different angles).
Doesn’t it make sense that if we want a strong safety law, one that will really keep our children safe, that regulators and manufacturers (as well as retailers & importers) should be able to understand it? Shouldn’t the CPSC be discussing issues of safety versus debating fine points of certification and administration?
Mihaela stated in her article that using green materials is more expensive but not impossible. Our company was one of the first companies to import a line of organic cotton dolls from Europe back in 2002. We expanded that to stuffed animals, along with other toys made from natural materials.
The regulations within the CPSIA is killing our natural business. We are struggling to deal with the cost and administration of the additional testing and permanent labeling.
The economics of the CPSIA favors companies like Mattel, and yes, Zhu Zhu. It was written for them. It essentially advocates producing in batches that are as large as possible, to spread the high testing costs across a high number of units.
Those natural toy companies that you turned to in 2007, during the height of the recalls, are disappearing from the market. Selecta, Brio, Storyblox, Sina, Heros, Hess, and many more…gone.
I think you will agree wholeheartedly that safety starts with quality materials (ie. natural fibers, natural dyes & finishes, etc), not to mention workmanship. The niche companies that have faithfully brought your family such products are disappearing before our eyes.
Today you have alternatives to Zhu Zhu….tomorrow you might not.
Comment by Jennifer Taggart, TheSmartMama on 10 December 2009:
I don’t know if the “mommy blogger” comment was directed at me – I know I was one of the first to comment on the series of posts related to the Zhu Zhu pets over here – and that was only a matter of happenstance and timing from some searches I was running. If it is, I resent the dismissive nature of the comment, especially since I have 15 years experience in consumer and environmental law, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission and am an expert in the CPSIA. I also happen to have extensive experience with XRF, having tested over 275,000 consumer products. And, by the way, I have absolutely nothing to do with Zhu Zhu Pets, Celia, or any related party. I have no material connection as a blogger or an attorney with those parties or the Good Guide for that matter. My interest stemmed only from the misuse of XRF data by Good Guide – not that XRF can’t be used for determining total antimony, but it cannot be used for determining soluble antimony, which rightly or wrongly happens to be the existing US standard.
Suffice it to say that you are wrestling with issues that many of us practicing in the field have raised for years with respect to the staffing and funding at the CPSC, especially immediately prior to the CPSIA’s enactment. The CPSIA has dramatically burdened the agency, although it has resulted in some increased funding and staffing. Most of the public has no idea the number of products the CPSC oversees – not just toys, but virtually every consumer product in your house, from household cleaners to vacuums to small electrical appliances to toys. The CPSC also oversees cribs, pacifiers, ride on toys, space heaters, bunk beds, mattresses, etc. All of these have substantial risks associated with them, such as flammability of mattresses, and demand attention from the agency.
Similar problems exist with the FDA and cosmetics. Most people assume that products on store shelves are safe – toys and cosmetics – but no government agency does any testing of toys or cosmetics or really any other product. The CPSIA was supposed to fix that problem for children’s products by requiring 3rd party testing, but the CPSIA has numerous problems, too detailed to go into here.
In any event, you are jumping into issues that many of us have been living with daily – working with the CPSC, submitting comments on proposals, performing XRF testing, working with CPSC staff at the ports (for imports), helping clients navigate the requirements, etc. I wouldn’t be so dismissive of us “mommy bloggers”
Comment by Jennifer Taggart, TheSmartMama on 10 December 2009:
Phil – I happened to read through the comments left on an earlier post, and am disheartened to see the response. I spend most of my time trying to reduce or eliminate exposure to toxic chemicals in consumer products, from cosmetics to toys to mattresses. I couldnt’ care less whether somebody buys a Zhu Zhu Pet or not. I don’t want bad science to lead the way – and that’s what Good Guide’s XRF testing and then comparing it to a soluble limit was. The XRF testing wasn’t bad – it was the conclusion that the Zhu Zhu Pets violated the soluble standard that was bad.
That being said, the leading problem in consumer products is not antimony. The leading problems are lead, conventional pesticides (increase childhood leukemia by up to 9 times), flame retardants (PBDEs), other halogenated flame retardants, hormone disrupting phthalates, bisphenol A, formaldehyde, perfluorinated compounds, mercury, and 1,4 dioxane (by product of ethoxylation and found in many beauty/bath products). The problem with raising the (false) alarm over antimony is that it gets much harder to focus attention on real chemical exposure concerns, especially when even if the antimony had all be soluble, it still wouldn’t have been a particularly risky issue (although it would have violated the US standard if it was in a coating). And also jumping up and down about 103 ppm antimony suggests a complete misunderstanding of the toxic chemicals to which we all voluntarily expose ourselves every day, at much higher levels. In the morning, when you use conventional bath/beauty products, you expose yourself to carcinogenic VOCs (in the synthetic fragrance), hormone disrupting phthalates (fragrance), parabens, 1,4 dioxane (carcinogen, present if you use any products containing any “eth” compounds), formaldehyde (from formaldehyde donor preservatives) and triclosan if you use antibacterial products. If your sheets are easy care/no wrinkle, you slept with formaldehyde. Is your mattress polyurethane or any foam? You inhaled flame retardants most of the night. Do you use recycled content toilet paper? You are exposing yourself to bisphenol A. Are you wearing water proof/resistant clothing, or stain repellant clothing? You’ve got perfluorinated compounds. When you eat, do you drink or eat out of plastic? Do you eat canned foods containing bisphenol A from the lining? Do you drink canned soda with bisphenol A or do you drink from #1 water bottles (or soda) thereby exposing your self to antimony, acetaldehyde and more? Did you pump gas and expose yourself to benzene? You’ve got flame retardants in your car. I can go on. The point is that we have a serious need to address the chemicals in our easy care, disposable lifestyles, but raising a false allegation of a violation is not the right way to do it.
Comment by Phil Butler on 10 December 2009:
Rob, This closing of comments had nothing to do with you. The comments were closed largely because of comments you could not see. Ones which we did not approve because of their inflamatory or very insulting nature. As a matter of fact, you made the most sensible and valid comments in that whole string. I looked at the things which you manufacture and since you mention it, Brio in particular makes arguably the finest toys in the world.
If you are so inclined, maybe we can get together and do a story about this. I have talked with Brio before about another situation, and they are an excellent company. All this “promotion” and jockeying around you see in other people’s comments is child’s play really. But, the deeper implications of all this are at the core of so many of our problems today. I know that most of us want the same thing tho. I wish we could get off our soap boxes and get things done.
Please emaill me and I will share with you what I can out of my talks with the CPSC and Good Group among many others. Most of all, thanks for your valid and gauged input.
Always,
Phil
Comment by Phil Butler on 10 December 2009:
Dismissive is not my first or even second reaction. And, “real” mommy bloggers are scarcely involved in any of this other than as unwitting, or should I say “innocent” participants. I identified your expertise and niche as outside the mainstream mommy blogger channels already. I made all the points you make all be it in a more generalized way in another post.
Phil
Pingback by CPSC Statement Provokes Prudence for Zhu Zhu Still on 10 December 2009:
[...] calming of the masses over the Zhu Zhu Pet story is an interesting case. In the second part of our coverage we originally intended to only show the massive marketing, social media and PR efforts arrayed to [...]