Know what is in your environment

January 30, 2010

Lead & Cadmium found in Yellow Bumbo Seats

Yellow Bumbo Seats

Yellow Bumbo Seats

Our main reason to start our business (Essco Safety Check) in 2007 was to help moms and dads know about the products that they and their children interacted with at home.  Essentially, we wanted to make sure that our children and family members were not exposed to harmful toxicants.  Some things have changed with our business model; expanding to help businesses, industries and government, but our premise is still the same, knowledge and awareness.

At this same time we started Essco Safety Check, my nephew who was not even one years old was found to have small amounts of lead in his blood.  We immediately became detectives and began searching for the source of his blood lead levels.  Having an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer was an extreme advantage, we were able to rapidly narrow down the potential culprits. 

By using the XRF analyzer, my brother was capable of identifying one specific item which his body came in direct contact with.  The likely culprit of my nephew’s blood lead levels was a Bumbo seat (a polyurethane seat a baby can sit in on the floor and wiggle around in but not get out of), specifically a yellow Bumbo seat.  This one item contained approximately 2000 parts per million (PPM) of lead and my nephew would sit in it, in a diaper, and chew on the sides of the seat.

With this knowledge we simply removed the yellow Bumbo seat from his use and a few months later he was retested for lead in his blood and no lead was found.

All of this was occurring at the end of 2007 and at that time there was no legislation about lead in children’s products other than painted surfaces, so the yellow Bumbo seat was legal.  Bumbo seats are not painted; they appear to have an integrated coloring.

By April of 2008, Washington State had passed a new law, the Children’s Safe Products Act (CPSA), which regulated lead and cadmium in total content (this regulation has been preempted by newer federal regulation).  And in August of 2008, then President Bush signed the Children’s Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in to law which regulated heavy metals in children’s products.  With this new regulation lead is regulated for both total content and soluble content, all other elements within the regulation have a soluble content limit standard (this standard is currently voluntary for most children’s products, the Bumbo seat falls into this category).

In May of 2008 I met with a few U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) personal to go over some test results from new retail product testing, and general consumer product findings from the typical home inspection.  This data included children’s products found with lead and cadmium, including some children’s jewelry items and the yellow Bumbo seat that was my nephews and contained lead.

In July of 2008, there was a national recall issued by the CPSC for one item we informed the CPSC about, it contained high quantities of lead.

I’m going to jump ahead to June of 2009.

I was hired to do an inspection on a house boat in Seattle to specifically look for lead.  This family had a young child who was diagnosed with lead in his blood, not at the action level, but enough to be concerned.  While testing in their home, I was discussing my story of how we got started as a business, my nephew and the yellow Bumbo seat.  The couple said, “We have a yellow Bumbo seat.”  I said, “Then I think we’ve found your culprit for lead in your child.” 

They immediately brought me the yellow Bumbo seat to test; I tested it feeling confident I had solved this case.

Using an XRF analyzer I tested the yellow Bumbo seat.  No lead was found, however cadmium was found present in the yellow Bumbo seat.

I suggested that they remove the yellow Bumbo seat from their child’s use and potentially have their child’s blood tested for cadmium.

I must say that in over two years of testing consumer products, specifically Bumbo’s, I’ve think I have tested every color Bumbo that they make.  I can say, in all my testing, I’ve never seen lead or cadmium in any other color, except yellow!

A few months ago, I began assisting an AP reporter with data for an investigation of cadmium in children’s jewelry, I shared the same with him as I shared with the CPSC the prior year.  During our discussions about children’s products and heavy metals we have found, the yellow Bumbo seat was talked about.  We even tried to purchase new yellow Bumbo seats, but were not able to find any new yellow Bumbo’s in any retail store.  The only place we found yellow Bumbo seats for sale was on Ebay.com and craigslist.com, but those are used items and the CPSC appears to truly be only concerned about regulations for new products.

As a company, we have decided to offer free yellow Bumbo seat screening.  Recently we had a concerned mom stop by our office with her beautiful young child and her yellow Bumbo seat.  We tested her yellow Bumbo with our XRF analyzer and did not find lead, but we found cadmium at approximately 2350 PPM.

Is it a coincidence that when lead became regulated, that cadmium was found in its place?  Cadmium is a very harmful toxicant and a known carcinogen, but it is not regulated in total content like lead. 

I have tested approximately a dozen yellow Bumbo seats since we started our business, I’ve most likely tested hundreds of all Bumbo seat colors.  These tests were done mostly at community events or in people’s homes who have hired us to test the consumer products testing.  In each and every case when testing a yellow Bumbo seat, lead was found, except for the last two I have tested (both mentioned in this article) which were found with cadmium. 

I’m definitely not here to say that all yellow Bumbo seats are made contain lead or cadmium, but everyone that I have tested has been found with one of these harmful elements.  The mom who recently visited me to test her yellow Bumbo was very concerned and wondered why no one has been informed of this? 

I can only speculate about this, I have not spoken to the manufacturing company, but questions can easily be raised.  Did they know about the lead in their products?  Do they know about cadmium in their products currently?  Where are all the new yellow Bumbo seats?  Why can’t I find a new yellow Bumbo seat on the market?

I unfortunately start to think about moral and ethical questions surrounding this entire situation as well.  Who is more important the shareholder or the consumer?  Is it better to pay a fine then change manufacturing procedures?   What are the social and economic impacts of these heavy metals that our children are exposed to?

To my knowledge, no recall was ever issued for this specific item. 

I want to emphasize a few key things.

First, just because a consumer product that your child is exposed contains a heavy metal, does not mean that that heavy metal will harm your child.  But since that harmful element is present it may cause harm. Simple awareness can mitigate this harm.

Second, I honestly do not know if it is just coincidence about the timing of the metals with the yellow Bumbo seat.  Technically, there is nothing illegal about the yellow Bumbo with cadmium.  But once again, it is a harmful element and to mitigate exposure, mitigates harm.

Third, I am honestly just trying to bring some awareness to this situation.  As I have mentioned, I have tested a variety of Bumbo seat colors, in my experience I have never seen lead or cadmium in any color, other than yellow.  All of these tests were tested with XRF analyzers. 

Our company goal is to help people and businesses know what is in their environment.  Hopefully creating jobs and improving lives; reducing business expenses and helping businesses comply with regulation; most importantly, providing knowledge and awareness.

If you have a yellow Bumbo seat and are close enough to visit our office, please contact us at info@essco-safetycheck.com or call us at 425-749-4136 to set up an appointment.  We will be happy to test your yellow Bumbo seat for free.  Feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

January 29, 2010

Children’s necklaces recalled due to high levels of cadmium

Essco Safety Check played a small role in this recall; we initially assisted the Associated Press with data and information from over two years of testing consumer products using our XRF analyzers.  Our data, along with data from HealthStuff.org lead the AP to do an investigation about cadmium in children’s jewelry.  That investigation has lead to this recall.

Today, January 29, 2010, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a voluntary recall of children’s metal necklaces.  In corporation with F.A.F. of Greenville, R.I. about 55,000 units were recalled. 

The products recalled are shaped as a frog pendant or metal crown on a metal chain necklace.  The model #’s are 4616-4187 & 4616-4190 with UPC #’s 72783367144 & 72783367147

Children's jewelry recalled

Children's jewelry recalled

These items were sold exclusively at Wal-Mart retail stores nationwide from November 2009 through January 2010 for approximately $5.

It is recommended that consumer immediately remove these recalled items from children.  Please take all the recalled jewelry to any Wal-Mart retail store for a full refund or a free replacement product.

For those of you who wish to further contact F.A.F or additional information, please call F.A.F Inc at 1-800-949-3311 between 8 am and 4:30 pm ET Monday – Friday or visit www.faf.com

January 26, 2010

Lead found in women’s handbags

Filed under: Health, News, Regulation — Tags: , , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 11:24 am

Would you be surprised to find out that your favorite handbag contains lead?  In a story first reported by ABC World News, lead has been found in handbags from some of the nation’s top retailers.  The Center for Environmental Health went to several retailers (Target, Macy’s, Wal-Mart and Kohl’s) and purchased handbags that were tested for lead by an independent laboratory.

The laboratory performed two types of tests; surface lead content with a wipe lead testing kit and total lead content.   The data from these tests showed high levels of lead, according to the Center for Environmental Health. 

Unfortunately, finding lead and other potentially harmful metals in handbags is something that we have noticed since our company (Essco Safety Check) began providing XRF testing services.  In my experience I have found lead in handbags/purses, wallets, backpacks, beach bags and luggage of all different styles and makes (among many other consumer products). 

There are basically two types of these items; natural material and synthetic or polyvinyl chloride (PVC).  Lead is typically used to make the pigments brighter but it is also an additive to PVC, a stabilizer to prevent hydrochloric acid from forming during the production of PVC.  PVC can be made without lead and other harmful elements, but we do find lead more frequently in the synthetic/PVC materials more than in natural fibers.

It would be wise for women who have young children, a.k.a. woman of “child bearing” age to know what their handbags are made out of.  All too often children will grab a hold of the handbags strap and chew or suck on this part of the handbag.  Children explore in a variety of different ways and specifically with hand-to-mouth contact, we want to make sure what they are putting in their mouths doesn’t contain any harmful toxicants.

According to the laboratory that performed the independent testing, all of the handbags were made in China and in some tested handbags there was 30 to 100 times the total content limit for lead in children’s products.   The Children’s Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) has set total content limits for children’s products at 300 Parts Per Million (PPM) for all products and 90 PPM for painted surfaces.  The results from some of the wipe test kits found lead levels to be more than California permits for a product unless it carries a warning label for cancer and birth defects.

It is important to note that just because a consumer product, such as a handbag, has lead, it does not mean that that consumer product is going to harm anyone.  However, lead is a known toxicant which can cause a variety of different health problems, and if it is present in a consumer product that is used regularly, there is more potential for harm.

Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm.

January 22, 2010

The Potential Economic Impact of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

This is an objective view of how the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is potentially affecting small businesses, the testing costs and methods, as well as a common sense approach to certification and job creation.

The CPSIA was written in 2008 to ensure that children’s products don’t contain harmful amounts of certain elements, like lead and cadmium.  All children’s products must eventually be certified by an accredited 3rd party laboratory who utilizes specific testing methods.  With these laboratory results a company can create the required general certificate of conformity (GCC).

There is also a stay of enforcement with the CPSIA until 2/10/11 for the GCC on all children’s products other than those that are painted, children’s jewelry, cribs or pacifiers.  Additionally, there is regulation in total content of lead and regulation in soluble content for eight elements (including lead), this method (soluble) ASTM F-963 is currently voluntary.  There is also regulation for the amount of certain phthalates, a chemical added to plastics to make them softer.

All current approved testing methods are destructive, they are very costly, can take extensive periods of time to get results.  This testingcan only done by a select group of laboratories (only 227 worldwide and 60 within the United States, many of these labs have one parent company). 

While researching this article, I attempted to find an economic impact analysis that was performed for CPSIA, but was unable to find one.  I even contacted a state representative with Washington State, in April 2008, four months prior to the federal CPSIA regulation, Washington State passed the Children’s Product Safety Act, but apparently no impact study was done either.

How does one figure out the economics behind this piece of legislation? 

I thought to try and simplify things and try to figure out how many businesses would be impacted, what size of business they are and ultimately how products that would be affected.  I will compare an approximate cost of traditional testing methods, to a technology that is mobile and non-destructive (X-Ray Fluorescence).  And I will show how many jobs could be potentially created. 

Number of businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA

Businesses that are potentially affected by the CPSIA include; Manufacturers, importers, retailers, charities and re-sellers who make, distribute in commerce, children’s products, those designed and marketed to children 12 and under.

I found two main sources for this data, the US Census and the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).  The US Census numbers were from 2006 and the numbers from the NAICS are from 2009.

Here is data from the North American Industy Classification System (NAICS)  their data was used to calculate the number of potentail businesses affected by the CPSIA.

Total number of manufacturers potentially affected by the CPSIA in the United States 52,544***
Total number of wholesalers potentially affected by the CPSIA in the United States 125,624***
Total number of retailers potentially affected by the CPSIA in the United States 511,240***
Total number of businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA according to the NAICS 689,408***

The US Census provided data on the size of the businesses affected and is broken down by percentage.  My use and definition of small business is based on <500 employees, however, I include data on 0-4 employees and <20, this data is based only on the businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA.

Total Manufacturers potentially affected have 0-4 employees 46.3%, <20 employees 78.7% and <500 employees 97.4%*** (these are cumulative totals)
Total Wholesalers potentially affected have 0-4 employees 54.1%, <20 employees 79.7% and <500 employees 94.8%*** (these are cumulative totals)
Total Retailers potentially affected have 0-4 employees 37.9%, <20 employees 56.9% and < 500 employees 65.7%*** (these are cumulative totals)
Average for all businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA have 0-4 employees 40.2%, <20 employees 60.8% and <500 employees 70.9%*** (these are cumulative totals)

What does all of this mean?  More small businesses are going to be affected by this regulation than large businesses.  40% of all businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA are very small with only 0-4 employees. 61% of all businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA have less than 20 employees.  All businesses classified as small businesses, less than 500 employees, 71% of them potentially will be affected by the CPSIA.

Number of products potentially needing testing

Attempting to figure out the amount of SKUs or total products potentially affected was an even larger task than trying to figure out the number of businesses potentially affected.  There is no single source of data about the number of products manufactured or sold, so I took a slightly different approach.  I researched a few key consumer websites and contacted a few experts to make my assumptions.

Yes, I said assumptions.  The problem with figuring out some specifics is that I’m guessing on a few key points.  Here we go!

I first visited ETSY.com.  ETSY.com is a website that sells handmade consumer products, you know, made by your friends and sold online.  When I looked on their site earlier this week, they had over 280,000 children’s products listed.

I decided to go to two other major consumer product retail sales websites, Buy.com and Amazon.com.  At Buy.com when I tallied all the potential products that could be affected by the CPSIA I found over 66,000 different products.  On Amazon.com the amount was much more.  I will add one caveat, at amazon.com they did not separate jewelry into a product category “children’s jewelry” so I used the total of all jewelry in my tally.  With all jewelry listed and all other products I found that could be potentially affected by the CPSIA, the total was almost 1.18 million products on Amazon.com.  Without the jewelry the total was over 150,000 products.

In a conversation I had with a regulatory agency employee in the State of Washington, she suggested that the total number of potential products on the market is in the tens of millions.

Based on these numbers and suggestions, I’m going to split the middle and suggest that there are five million different products on the market that could be impacted by the CPSIA.

The Cost Breakdown

First we need to look at the traditional testing methods.  I’m only going to look for three things, amount of lead, amount of cadmium and phthalate testing (traditionally this is tested using a Gas Chromatography machine).  For this analysis, disregard all other potential costs.

Traditional ICP-MS testing for heavy metals can easily be hundreds of dollars per test, per color, per substrate.  I have been quoted ranges from $75 to $300 per test for heavy metal testing; phthalate testing has been a bit lower from $75 to $150.  For this comparison, I’m going to use the low end of $75 per test.

I am also going to assume that every item needs to be tested a total of five times.  Every product is a little be different, they’re made with different colors, different substrates and materials.  Take an old childhood favorite Rubik’s Cube.  It has six different colors and is made of one substrate (black plastic), that item would require a minimum of seven tests.  As I said, I’m going to use a five test average.

If there are five million items and each has to be tested five times, that is a total of twenty-five million tests.  Considering we are looking for three things (lead, cadmium and phthalates at $75 per test) the total for traditional testing methods would be $5.625 billion.

If all the accredited laboratories split this testing evenly, that would be approximately $25 million per lab worldwide.

Other testing method

There is a technology that is mobile and non-destructive that can simultaneously look for lead, cadmium and PVC in one simple push of the button.  Unfortunately, it is not the approved testing method for the CPSIA.

This technology is called X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) and is readily available to use for consumer product testing.  It is the approved testing source for HUD Lead inspections, and is used by the EPA, FDA and CPSC.

Data that I have collected from over 8000 test results using XRF analyzers shows that of all consumer products tested only 16.3% are found with any amount of lead, 4.3% are found with any amount cadmium and 11.1% are identified to be made of PVC.  In total only 31.7% of all consumer products I have tested using XRF analyzers have been found with lead, cadmium or PVC, yet all products are required to be tested destructively.

I used these percentages to help figure out the comparable numbers.

Comparison

If all products are tested by traditional testing methods using ICP-MS and GC machines the cost for testing for lead, cadmium and PVC would be $5.625 billion.  However, if you were to use XRF analyzers to screen all these products, at a cost average of $5.00 per test the total cost would be $125 million. 

At this point, all items that tested positive for lead, cadmium or PVC should be further tested by the traditional testing methods.  Using the percentage of items found with lead, cadmium or PVC (31.7%) traditional testing methods would cost $1.784 billion.  If you add up the XRF screening and then the re-testing by traditional testing methods, the costs would be approximately $1.9 billion. 

That would be a cost savings of $3.7 billion or 66.1% for consumer product testing for the CPSIA.

That is a tremendous amount of money that these businesses can put back to work in our economy, hiring people, investing, building business all while keeping compliant with the regulations.

Number of jobs created

I’m going to specifically look at this as the formation of XRF Certified Consumer Product Inspectors.  If a total of twenty-five million tests need to be done annually, and each inspector can do two hundred tests per day, two hundred and fifty days per year, that could create five hundred jobs.  That is not including managers and office staff to handle additional work.  Overall, I would suspect that close to one thousand jobs could be created, but that is only based on five million products that need to be tested.

What if that total number is closer to twenty million?  That would potentially be upwards of four thousand jobs and a potential economic impact of close to $15 billion going back in to the pockets of businesses of which almost 71% are considered small businesses.

Conclusion

What I’m suggesting is a common sense approach to testing and the certification that consumer products meet the regulations of the CPSIA.  If XRF testing is approved to simply screen products for certain heavy metals and PVC, and only those found to contain these elements or chemicals would be further tested, there can be a huge positive economic impact for small businesses, as well as the creation of jobs.

***These figures were calculated from two sources, the US Census and the NAICS.

January 16, 2010

The Individual, the item and the relationship!

Filed under: viewpoint — Tags: , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 12:31 pm

Earlier this week I was interviewed by Connie Thompson of ABC KOMO News 4 (about how my small company assisted with initial data that lead to an AP investigation about cadmium in children’s jewelry) and asked a question that I’ve been thinking about ever since.  Should parents be truly concerned about heavy metals in children’s products?

This is such a big question and every time I talk about this subject I try and emphasize a few points that I wanted to share.

First, the information we provide is potentially “scary” and it is not my intention to scare anyone, I simply want to provide information and knowledge about your environment.   We use X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers to look for heavy metals in virtually anything, and my company Essco Safety Check has been providing this knowledge for over two years.

With this knowledge you can make educated decisions as to what you and your children are exposed to. If you know what is in the consumer products you and your children use, you can mitigate harm by simply reducing exposure to that item.

I want to also emphasize that it would be my first choice to test and work with manufacturers, testing items before the enter stores or consumers homes; however, that is not always the case and many concerned families and businesses have contact us about our testing services.

Here are my thoughts about to try and answer the question, “what are parents and people in general suppose to do about potentially toxic metals in consumer products.”

There are several different attributes that add to this pending “equation” to answer what is a parent suppose to do, I’ve narrowed this discussion down to three main components: The individual, the item and the relationship to that item “use”.

All of these factors add up to a dizzying amount of questions of which are almost impossible to answer all of them.

The Individual

Every person is slightly different; we all have different characteristics.  We are all different heights and body masses.  Some people can run a marathon; others can sit at a computer desk for hours.  We all have different immune systems and this is really the point I want to talk about with the individual. 

Some people never get sick and always have energy; other people always get sick and never feel like they have enough energy.  Some people are allergic to a variety of different things; other people appear not to be allergic to anything.  We all react differently to different things; Heavy metals and chemicals are a part of those things.

It could be as simple as what genome type are you?  (Let me also add, I’m not a doctor, these are just my opinions) I remember as a child playing with mercury, and yet I appear to be fairly normal.  I suspect it is because I can process these metals and chemicals that we come in contact with.  Maybe there is a specific genome that just has this inability of processing these metals and chemicals we are routinely exposed to.

This is also where I begin to think about autism and specifically autistic children.  In my experience of providing XRF testing services I’ve been to dozens of homes with autistic children and meet dozens and dozens of families a various community events.  All the parents of these autistic children tell me that their children have heavy metals in their blood, and coincidence or not, when I test at their homes, I find the same heavy metals in the consumer products that these children use regularly.

This is why the individual is a very hard part of the equation.  When asked what to do with children’s products specifically (children 6 and under are at the most critical time to reduce toxic element exposure) I generally suggest to mitigate exposure to certain heavy metals as much as possible, those include; Lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and others depending on a variety of things including individual situations (like autistic children). 

If you can reduce your contact with these heavy metals, you are mitigating exposure and preventing potential harm to your children, you, your pets and others.

The Item

Everything we use in our lives is made from a variety of different elements.  Water is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen, steel is typically a combination of iron and a variety of other metals.  All consumer products are made from the same variety of elements.  The items we all use are slightly different depending on what they are manufactured with, when they are manufactured and where they are manufactured.

In over two years of testing I have unfortunately found harmful heavy metals in a variety of children’s products and general consumer products.  It is generally a random find and in my opinion is simply from the raw materials that are used in the production of these items.  I’m sure there are a few cases where there are intentional uses of harmful metals (for cost purposes), but for this discussion I’m talk about random finds.

The item part of the equation is fairly simple, what is the item made with?  If it is not made with any potential toxicants, then there is really no worry regardless of the individual part.  But, if the consumer product does contain a potential toxicant, like lead or cadmium, there are definitely more questions to ask.

What’s in the item?  How much? Is it on the surface, like paint? Or is it integrated in the coloring of the entire product?

The relationship “use” of the item

Here is where all of this is combined.  Once again, if you have a consumer product that doesn’t have any toxicants, besides harm of swallowing or various other safety concerns, regarding heavy metals, I’m going to tell a parent not to be concerned.  If the item in question has harmful toxicants present, then we have some concerns and questions to ask.

How is the item used?  How often?  Is a child putting it in their mouth?  If so, I’d try and stop that immediately.

Is the item painted?   If so, is the paint the problem? If so, what is the condition of the paint?

What is the item made of?  If the item is made of PVC I’m going to have more concerns because of the greater potential for the harmful toxicants to leach out.  Is the item jewelry and made of metal?  There are concerns about sucking on these types of items.  Is the item of natural fibers? 

There are just so many questions, but ultimately, how that product is used is an important question to answer if the item has a harmful toxicant.  Is this item something that just sits around and never gets interacted with? Or is it something used often?  I’m concerned about the items that have a direct use relationship with people.

I’m not overly concerned about a picture frame on your wall, which has lead, unless that picture frame is painted and that paint is cracking and chipping.   That picture frame has very little interaction with you and your family in your environment.

Now the things that your children play with, the things that you and your children eat off of and you drink out of I am concerned about.  These are the items that I want to understand how they are used, what they are made of, what environmental conditions are these items exposed to (different heat)?

Do you take your children’s toys, the plastic ones (PVC) and sanitize them in the dishwasher? If so, they can be exposed to a variety of different heats, as great as 360 F.  When you go to the beach do you leave toys in the car that are exposed to direct sunlight?  Do you use something to cook with that goes from the oven to the dishwasher to the freezer?

When you start to add up this equation, it is fairly long and very hard to answer.

Here is my simple thought. 

Why are children’s products and the items we cook with, eat off of and drink out of permitted to have these harmful toxicants?  I’m not suggesting that these elements don’t have certain good uses; they do, just not in these items.

Until that day comes, it is potentially a good idea to know what is in your environment. 

I hope that this helps in your understanding.

Don’t live your life in fear, just be aware and mitigate harm with knowledge.

January 14, 2010

Mattel is permitted to do testing in-house: The CPSC granted Mattel’s request and is exempt from 3rd Party Conformity Testing as required by the CPSIA.

There has been little said about the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) decision to grant Mattel’s request to do its own laboratory testing, the testing for heavy metals and safety of children’s products as required within the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). 

The CPSIA states in section 102 “Mandatory Third Party Testing for Certain Children’s Products” that manufacturers, importers or retailers must certify that their products meet the specifications of the law by using third-party testing.  This testing will provide information for the required General Conformity Certificate (GCC).

However, back in August of 2009, the CPSC decided to grant Mattel the ability to do all its own testing and thus is not required to use an independent “Third-Party” testing laboratory for conformity. 

Is it strange that Mattel, who was recently fined $2.3 million for lead painted toys in 2007, is granted the ability to do its own testing, privately? 

Is this a fair market practice to permit the largest nation’s largest toy maker to not do independent third-party conformity testing?   They will obviously pay less by percentage for testing than other businesses.  Is this benefiting the consumer or the stock holder?

According to CNBC year ending 12/31/07, Mattel had revenue of $5.97 Billion, with an operating income of $733 Million.  In June of 2009, Mattel agreed to pay a fine of $2.3 million for civil penalties for violating regulations for lead-based paint on toys sold in 2007.

This means that Mattel was fined 1/2596th of the revenue it earned from 2007, the year of the lead-based paint fond on toys, or 0.313% of their operating income.  Is this just a slap on the wrist?  If a penalty is less than 1/3 of 1 percent, how does this make a manufacturer change?  How is this ensuring that products are actually meeting regulations if you get to test behind closed doors?

Now if you said that the fine was to be 5% of their income, that total would be $36.65 million dollars, is that enough of a fine?

I’m guessing that the cost of the procedures to make changes in the manufacturing process cost more than $2.3 million, so it may be cheaper to just get fined in the future and help out stock holders rather than to protect and ensure the safety of our children.

The CPSIA appears to be benefiting large businesses, potentially even unfair market practices, while potentially putting small business out of business.  One client of mine said, “small children’s product manufactures are going to go extinct if something is not done.”

Earlierthis week, my company Essco  Safety Check was involved in a nation story about cadmium in children’s jewelry and other children’s products.  The testing for cadmium is currently voluntary within the CPSIA, is Mattel doing that testing? 

I am not suggesting that Mattel is not capable of providing the appropriate testing and certification, however, is it fair to ask a company to pay half or more of their revenue on testing children’s products, while another gets the rights to do all its testing in-house? 

There are other large businesses that are waiting for approval to do their own independent testing.  Will the CPSC grant additional businesses the right to side-step “third-party testing”?

Currently, only children’s products that are painted, jewelry, cribs, pacifiers or small parts need third-party conformity testing.  All other children’s products have a stay of testing and certification requirements, all products are still required to meet federal regulations for restricted metals, such as lead.

Currently, the only approved testing methods within the CPSIA are destructive in nature and at fixed site laboratories, or in-house at Mattel.  Here is where X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) technology can help small and large businesses with the CPSIA.

January 11, 2010

The US CPSC is investigating cadmium found in children’s jewelry

What can I say? Being on the frontlines by operating a consumer product testing business, I’ve seen this trend developing.  My company, Essco Safety Check, was mentioned along with HealthyStuff.org for providing data to Justin Pritchard, the AP reporter who wrote the article “AP: Feds probe cadmium in kids’ jewelry from China” January 10th, 2010 

All indication from our testing data suggests that cadmium appears to be increasing in all consumer products, not just children’s jewelry.  We also have seen an increase in antimony, while lead appears to be leveling in children’s products, which is regulated fairly strictly.  However, our testing has shown an increase in lead in non-children’s products.

Apparently, the Associated Press conducted their own independent testing of children’s jewelry purchased in New York, Ohio, Texas and California.  Their testing was conducted by chemistry professor Jeff Weidenhamer of Ashland University of Ohio, who has worked with the CPSC in the past. The results found cadmium in children’s jewelry at a level of 100,000 PPM (10%) or greater in 12 percent of the 103 items tested.  This testing is what is leading the US CPSC to investigate cadmium found in children’s jewelry.

Let me give you some back ground information for you to understand what cadmium is and how it is regulated.

Cadmium is a metal found naturally occurring in the earth’s crust.  It does not corrode easily and has many uses, including batteries, pigments, metal castings, and plastics.  However, Cadmium is a known carcinogen, plain and simple.  It is a potentially harmful toxicant!

Why is it increasing in our consumer products?  Fairly simply in my opinion, lead is now a fairly well regulated metal and manufacturers are substituting a metal (cadmium) that is readily available, has limited regulations and is inexpensive. 

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) does include cadmium in their regulations, as well as other elements, like lead.   However, the regulations for lead include total content and soluble content.  Cadmium only has a soluble content regulation and that portion of the regulation (soluble content ASTM-F963) is currently under a stay for the general certificate of conformity and third-party approved testing.

Consumer products are still required to be safe from the regulated metals, but the testing standards and certification process is on a little delay.

What does this mean?  In my opinion, Washington State had it right when they wrote their children’s product safety act of 2008.  This act regulated both lead and cadmium in total content. 

Additional, this is also another reason, in my opinion, to utilize X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers  and how they can impact the CPSIA and help people and businesses know what is in their environment.  In one quick push of a button, of course with some proper training, you can non-destructively test for lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and other elements.  XRF analyzers are mobile, cost effective, efficient and accurate machines to identify a variety of heavy metals.

One quick note…just because an item such as children’s jewelry may have a harmful metal such as lead or cadmium does not mean that that item will harm anyone.  But if that item does have lead or cadmium, it may be harmful and you should understand what is in your environment to mitigate harm.

January 10, 2010

AP IMPACT: Toxic Metal in Kids’ Jewelry From China

Here is an article written January 10th, 2010 by Justin Pritchard, Associated Press Writer, that my company is mentioned in.

{{desc}}

via AP IMPACT: Toxic Metal in Kids’ Jewelry From China – ABC News.

Barred from using lead in children’s jewelry because of its toxicity, some Chinese manufacturers have been substituting the more dangerous heavy metal cadmium in sparkling charm bracelets and shiny pendants being sold throughout the United States, an Associated Press investigation shows.

The most contaminated piece analyzed in lab testing performed for the AP contained a startling 91 percent cadmium by weight. The cadmium content of other contaminated trinkets, all purchased at national and regional chains or franchises, tested at 89 percent, 86 percent and 84 percent by weight. The testing also showed that some items easily shed the heavy metal, raising additional concerns about the levels of exposure to children.

A spokesman for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulates children’s products, said Sunday that the agency “is opening an investigation” and “will take action as quickly as possible to protect the safety of children.”

Cadmium is a known carcinogen. Like lead, it can hinder brain development in the very young, according to recent research.

Children don’t have to swallow an item to be exposed — they can get persistent, low-level doses by regularly sucking or biting jewelry with a high cadmium content.

To gauge cadmium’s prevalence in children’s jewelry, the AP organized lab testing of 103 items bought in New York, Ohio, Texas and California. All but one were purchased in November or December.

The results: 12 percent of the pieces of jewelry contained at least 10 percent cadmium.

Some of the most troubling test results were for bracelet charms sold at Walmart, at the jewelry chain Claire’s and at a dollar store. High amounts of cadmium also were detected in “The Princess and The Frog” movie-themed pendants.

“There’s nothing positive that you can say about this metal. It’s a poison,” said Bruce A. Fowler, a cadmium specialist and toxicologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On the CDC’s priority list of 275 most hazardous substances in the environment, cadmium ranks No. 7.

Jewelry industry veterans in China say cadmium has been used in domestic products there for years. Zinc, the metal most cited as a replacement for lead in imported jewelry being sold in the United States, is a much safer and nontoxic alternative. But the jewelry tests conducted for AP, along with test findings showing a growing presence of cadmium in other children’s products, demonstrate that the safety threat from cadmium is being exported.

A patchwork of federal consumer protection regulations does nothing to keep these nuggets of cadmium from U.S. store shelves. If the products were painted toys, they would face a recall. If they were industrial garbage, they could qualify as hazardous waste. But since there are no cadmium restrictions on jewelry, such items are sold legally.

The CPSC has cracked down on the dangers posed by lead and products known to have killed children, such as cribs, it has never recalled an item for cadmium — even though it has received scattered complaints based on private test results for at least the past two years.

There is no definitive explanation for why children’s jewelry manufacturers, virtually all from China in the items tested, are turning to cadmium. But a reasonable double whammy looms: With lead heavily regulated under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, factories scrambled for substitutes, just as cadmium prices plummeted.

That law set a new, stringent standard for lead in children’s products: Only the very smallest amount is permissible — no more than 0.03 percent of the total content. The statute has led manufacturers to drastically reduce lead in toys and jewelry.

The law also contained the first explicit regulation of cadmium, though the standards are significantly less strict than lead and apply only to painted toys, not jewelry.

To determine how much cadmium a child could be exposed to, items are bathed in a solution that mimics stomach acid to see how much of the toxin would leach out after being swallowed.

The jewelry testing for AP was conducted by chemistry professor Jeff Weidenhamer of Ashland University in Ohio, who over the past few years has provided the CPSC with results showing high lead content in products that were later recalled. His lab work for AP assessed how much cadmium was in each item. Overall, 12 of the 103 items each contained at least 10 percent cadmium. Two others contained lower amounts, while the other 89 were clean.

Ten of the items with the highest cadmium content were then run through the stomach acid test to see how much would escape. Although that test is used only in regulation of toys, AP used it to see what hazard an item could pose because unlike the regulations, a child’s body doesn’t distinguish between cadmium leached from jewelry and cadmium leached from a toy.

“Clearly it seems like for a metal as toxic as cadmium, somebody ought to be watching out to make sure there aren’t high levels in items that could end up in the hands of kids,” said Weidenhamer.

The CPSC reacted swiftly to the AP story. Agency spokesman Scott Wolfson said: “CPSC will open an investigation into the products tested by Professor Weidenhamer, who we have worked closely with before.” He said CPSC would study Weidenhamer’s results, attempt to buy the contaminated products content and “take appropriate action as quickly as possible.”

Weidenhamer’s test results include:

— Three flip flop bracelet charms sold at Walmart contained between 84 and 86 percent cadmium. The charms fared the worst of any item on the stomach acid test; one shed more cadmium in 24 hours than what World Health Organization guidelines deem a safe exposure over 60 weeks for a 33-pound child.

The bracelet was purchased in August 2008. The company that imported them, Florida-based Sulyn Industries, stopped selling the item to Wal-Mart Corp. in November 2008, the firm’s president said. Wal-Mart would not comment on whether the charms are still on store shelves, or how many have been sold.

Sulyn’s president, Harry Dickens, said the charms were subjected to testing standards imposed by both Wal-Mart and federal regulation — but were not tested for cadmium.

In separate written statements, Dickens and Wal-Mart said they consider safety a very high priority. “We consistently seek to sell only those products that meet safety and regulatory standards,” Wal-Mart said. “Currently there is no required cadmium standard for children’s jewelry.”

As was the case with every importer or retailer that responded to AP’s request for comment on the tests, neither Sulyn nor Wal-Mart would address whether the results concerned them or if the products should be recalled.

— Four charms from two “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” bracelets sold at a Dollar N More store in Rochester, N.Y., were measured at between 82 and 91 percent cadmium. The charms also fared poorly on the stomach acid test. Two other charms from the same bracelets were subjected to a leaching test which recreates how much cadmium would be released in a landfill and ultimately contaminate groundwater. Based on those results, if the charms were waste from manufacturing, they would have had to be specially handled and disposed of under U.S. environmental law. The company that imported the Rudolph charms, Buy-Rite Designs, Inc. of Freehold, N.J., has gone out of business.

— Two charms on a “Best Friends” bracelet bought at Claire’s, a jewelry chain with nearly 3,000 stores in North America and Europe, consisted of 89 and 91 percent cadmium. The charms also leached alarming amounts in the simulated stomach test. Informed of the results, Claire’s issued a statement pointing out that children’s jewelry is not required to pass a cadmium leaching test.

“Claire’s has its products tested by independent accredited third-party laboratories approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission in compliance with the commission’s standards, and has passing test results for the bracelet using these standards,” the statement said. Those standards scrutinize lead content, not cadmium.

— Pendants from four “The Princess and The Frog” necklaces bought at Walmart ranged between 25 and 35 percent cadmium, though none failed the stomach acid test nor the landfill leaching test. The Walt Disney Co., which produced the popular animated movie, said in a statement that test results provided by the manufacturer, Rhode Island-based FAF Inc., showed the item complied with all applicable safety standards.

An official at FAF’s headquarters did not respond to multiple requests for comment when informed of Weidenhamer’s results; a woman at the company’s office in southern China who would not give her name said FAF products “might naturally contain some very small amounts of cadmium. We measure it in parts per million because the content is so small, for instance one part per million.” However, the tests conducted for AP showed the pendants contained between 246,000 and 346,000 parts per million of cadmium.

“It comes down to the following: Cadmium causes cancer. How much cadmium do you want your child eating?” said Michael R. Harbut, a doctor who has treated adult victims of cadmium poisoning and is director of the environmental cancer program at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit. “In my view, the answer should be none.”

Xu Hongli, a cadmium specialist with the Beijing office of Asian Metal Ltd., a market research and consultancy firm, said test results showing high cadmium levels in some Chinese-made metal jewelry did not surprise her. Using cadmium alloys has been “a relatively common practice” among manufacturers in the eastern cities of Yiwu and Qingdao and the southern province of Sichuan, Xu said.

“Some of their products contain 90 percent cadmium or higher,” she acknowledged. “Usually, though, they are more careful with export products.”

She said she thought that manufacturers were becoming aware of cadmium’s dangers, and are using it less, “But it will still take a while for them to completely shift away from using it.”

The CPSC has received dozens of incident reports of cadmium in products over the past few years, said Gib Mullan, the agency’s director of compliance and field operations. Though the CPSC has authority to go after a product deemed a public danger under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act — the law used in lead-related recalls several years ago — there have been no enforcement actions.

“We are a small agency so we can’t do everything we think would be a good idea. We have to try to pick our spots,” Mullan said. At most, the agency can investigate 10 percent of the tens of thousands of reports filed by the public each year, he said.

With the help of an outside firm, the CPSC has started a scientific literature review of cadmium and other heavy metals, including how the substances fare in leaching tests, according to spokesman Wolfson. “If there has a been a shift in manufacturing to the use of cadmium, CPSC will take appropriate action.”

Meanwhile, the CPSC’s Mullan cites “a trend upward” in cadmium reports the agency has received — and private-sector testing AP reviewed shows cadmium is showing up more frequently.

Two outfits that analyze more than a thousand children’s products each year checked their data at AP’s request. Both said their findings of cadmium above 300 parts per million in an item — the current federal limit for lead — increased from about 0.5 percent of tests in 2007 to about 2.2 percent of tests in 2009. Those tests were conducted using a technology called XRF, a handheld gun that bounces X-rays off an item to estimate how much lead, cadmium or other elements it contains. While the results are not as exact as lab testing, the CPSC regularly uses XRF in its product screening.

Much of the increase found by the Michigan-based HealthyStuff.org came in toys with polyvinyl chloride plastic, according to Jeff Gearhart, the group’s research director. Both lead and cadmium can be used to fortify PVC against the sun’s rays. Data collected by a Washington-based company called Essco Safety Check led its president, Seth Goldberg, to suspect that substitution of cadmium for lead partly explains the increase he’s seen.

Rick Locker, general counsel for the Toy Industry Association of America, and Sheila A. Millar, a lawyer representing the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association, said their industries make products that are safe and insisted cadmium is not widely used.

Millar said jewelry makers often opt for zinc these days. “While FJTA can only speak to the experience of its members,” Millar wrote in an e-mail, “widespread substitution of cadmium is not something they see.”

January 6, 2010

Modification of HUDs Lead-Based Paint Inspection Certification Program can create CPSIA XRF Consumer Product Inspectors

I believe that there is currently a system in place by the federal government that can be modified fairly easily to create XRF Consumer Product Safety Inspectors.  These inspectors can help businesses comply with regulation and reduce testing costs dramatically.  According to the Study on the Effectiveness, Precision, and Reliability of X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry and Other Alternative Methods for Measuring Lead in Paint

X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry has the potential to accurately measure lead content in painted films on children’s products at the limits required under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of2008, but appropriate standard reference materials (SRMs) and standard analytical methods need to be developed before a complete evaluation or determination is possible.

Now the system that I’m referring to is from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  I am currently a certified HUD Lead Inspector and Risk Assessor in the State of Washington.  In order for me to receive my certification, I had to first take a class and then pass a state exam (one as a lead inspector and a year later as a risk assessor)  You can review their guidelines here: http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/lbp/hudguidelines/Ch07.pdf

What I am suggesting is that with proper modification and adoption by the CPSC of Chapter 7 of the HUD (Lead-Based Paint Inspection), standard analytical methods can be developed.  I will even offer to assist with my experience and knowledge of consumer product testing using XRF analyzers.

We have developed data collection methods, testing methods and procedures, analytical software solutions to verify if the elements found are truly present in the consumer product or not present.

The HUD prefers to do a lead-based paint inspection by using XRF analyzers rather than destructive testing, like the CPSC. 

Some advantages that XRF offers according to the CPSC include:

1. XRF is often non-destructive (When we test we will even return your products tested to you)
2. Little sample preparation is required, typically less than two minutes. 
3. XRF can test small painted areas which is often difficult for ICP method (destructive testing)
4. Handheld XRF analyzers are portable, allowing for field-screening of products.

The CPSC did forget to mention the cost benefits of XRF verse ICP method.  On average, traditional testing using ICP-MS is in the range of $100.00 to $300.00 per color, per substrate, per test.  The costs we typically charge for XRF testing is in the range of $2.00 to $7.50 per color, per substrate, per test.

Some disadvantages with XRF suggested by the CPSC include:
1. XRF instruments do not readily measure in mass per units such as weight %, mg/kg or PPM and they have difficulty with quantification on a mass per mass unit basis.   (As a company are working on the quantification issue with software solutions and our XRF analyzers currently provides information in PPM among other measures)
2. The source radiation can travel through the paint into the underlying substrate, leading to a measurement result that has contributions from both.  Special care needs to be taken in ascertaining the source of lead in any measurement.  (This is exactly what I am suggesting by creating standards and guidelines for consumer product testing, just like testing for lead in a home like the HUD requires, we can reduce or eliminate this issue.  Common Sense solves certain problems)
3. XRF is matrix sensitive (This is true, but we are working on this as a company and we have never had a false positive for lead in any matrix and with proper software solutions and data this problem can be easily solved.  And if you forget about any quantification of the elements and just ask if they are there or not, XRF offers amazing opportunities to provide screening)
4. There is currently no consensus industry standard test methods for quantifying lead on a mass per mass unit basis (We are here to help create this industry standard, if you look at the HUD chapter 7 as a basis for creation of standards, we can be started down the right path.  And with proper or industry standard for data collection, testing and analysis, this problem can be easily solved.)

Here is the conclusion from the CPSC about XRF analysis:

The ability of XRF to be used to accurately measure lead content in painted films on children’s products at the limits required under the CPSIA is currently limited due to the unavailability of SRMs and standard analytical methods. CPSC staff will continue to study the feasibility of using XRF technology for analyzing painted films on children’s products as SRMs and standard analytical methods become available.

XRF technology is suitable in many cases for the accurate determination of lead in plastics provided appropriate test methods are followed, with the use of appropriate SRMs.

All I am suggesting is that there is currently a system to provide elemental information specifically about lead by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development.  With proper modification of Chapter 7 of the HUD guidelines, the CPSC can create certified CPSIA Consumer Product Safety Inspectors who use X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers to test consumer products and more specifically children’s products regulated under the CPSIA.

Would you want to see the creation of certified CPSIA XRF Consumer Product Safety Inspectors?

What do you think about modification of HUDs chapter 7 to assist the CPSC with CPSIA consumer product testing?

January 4, 2010

CPSIA – Reasonable Testing Program

It was recently suggested to me that I become a spokesperson for XRF flexibility for small businesses associated with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and assist small businesses with their reasonable testing programs.  For two years, my business (Essco – Safety Check) has been providing XRF mobile testing services to people and businesses, assisting them with elemental information and knowledge of their environment.  I am happy to offer my services as such a spokesperson.

Small businesses from coast to coast have contacted us this past year asking us to help them with the “insanity,” as one woman said, of the CPSIA.  We have been trying to assist them with compliance of regulations with children’s products, while reducing their testing expenses and helping them get their products to market faster.

In August 2008, President Bush signed the CPSIA into law.  This law restricts the amount of certain heavy metals in children’s products, among other regulations.   More to the point, there are two main elemental testing requirements; total lead content and soluble content of several elements (ASTM F963).  It requires manufactures, importers and retailers to ensure that their products comply with regulations.
 
The CPSIA requires specific testing methods for determining lead and other heavy metals in children’s products, and further requires certification of testing by a third party approved laboratory.  The testing methods required are destructive in nature and expensive.

Currently, there is a stay on the enforcement of certain testing requirements and certification, until 2/10/11.  Certain testing of children’s products are not stayed and need to be certified by third-party accredited laboratories; lead in paint, small parts, cribs, pacifiers and children’s metal jewelry.  All children’s products must meet the required limits for lead and other metals, but only those mentioned above need to be tested by a CPSC-recognized third-party conformity assessment body.

Yet, within the CPSIA there is a term “reasonable testing program” and many small businesses have asked me about this. 

What is a reasonable testing program?  According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Guidance Document: Testing and Certification Requirements under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA)

A reasonable testing program is a set of procedures that are employed to provide reasonable certainty that products made are in compliance with all applicable rules, bans, and standards. The minimum essential elements are:

(1) Product specifications that describe the consumer product and list the safety rules, standards, etc., with which the product must comply;
(2) Certification tests, which are performed on samples of the manufacturer’s consumer product to demonstrate that the product is capable of passing the tests prescribed by the standards;
(3) A production testing plan, which describes the tests that must be performed and at what intervals as long as the consumer product is being manufactured to provide reasonable assurance that the products as produced continue to meet all applicable safety rules;
(4) Remedial action plans, which must be employed whenever samples of the consumer product or results from any other tests used to assess compliance yield unacceptable or failing test results; and
(5) Documentation of the reasonable testing program and how it was implemented.
The CPSC expects that any general conformity certificate will be based upon a testing program that, at a minimum, includes these five elements.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines reasonable as:

Main Entry: rea•son•able
Pronunciation: \?r?z-n?-b?l, ?r?-z?n-?-b?l\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a : being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c : MODERATE, FAIR <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d : INEXPENSIVE
2 a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man>

Is it reasonable to therefore ask a small business, which has limited revenue dollars, to pay for a testing method that is expensive and destructive, specifically when a non-destructive, less expensive testing method is currently available?  Would it be extreme or excessive for a business to have to lay people off to pay for destructive testing methods?

Is it reasonable to ask small manufacturer to pay more for testing than they make in revenue?  That is a common problem that I hear from my customers, “testing is so expensive, the cost of testing will put me out of business.”  Or, “I can only afford to test a few items so I will only make a few different products.”

In this guidance document, there is a question about one-of-a-kind items and must they receive third-party tests on each product?  In the first sentence of the response, the CPSC says that “testing required by the applicable product safety rules would be impractical.”

Component testing is offered as an option, yet that is still very expensive and destructive, and in no place in this guidance is X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) offered as an option, the CPSC has talked and written about XRF many times.

In regards to ASTM-F963 (the soluble metals standards for lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, antimony, selenium, chromium and barium), manufactures, importers and sellers must ensure that their products conform to all the applicable regulations, but a notice of requirement for this particular standard, rule and regulation has not been issued yet.  Therefore, certificate of compliance based on the results of testing by a CPSC-recognized third-party conformity assessment body will not be required until 90 days after the commission issues the notice of requirements for ASTM F963.

What does all of this mean in terms of a reasonable testing program?  It appears to me that all children’s products that are not painted, have small parts (designed for children 3and under), a crib, pacifier or children’s metal jewelry can use a reasonable testing program until 90 days after the CPSC has issued requirements for ASTM F963 or the stay of enforcement has been lifted.

The XRF Analyzers that we use can detect lead as little as 10 PPM and are certified by the EPA and HUD for lead testing of government properties.  Yet there is some criticism that they are inaccurate in their quantification in terms of consumer products and different substrates.  Let us just use some common sense and forget any quantification by XRF about any elements for a moment.

For starters, XRF analyzers are non-destructive, mobile testing platform that can identify all eight elements associated with ASTM F963.  Using the spectrum data, we can accurately determine if an element is present or not present. 

Let me remind you, forgetting the quantification or amount of an element found (for example the current regulation for lead is 300 PPM in children’s products that are not painted), if we don’t find lead, it isn’t there in the area we tested.  If we don’t find any elements, why would you require further destructive, expensive testing?

Now if we find lead using XRF analyzers, there can be a question to how much lead is actually present.   As a business, we are working on this solution, but for now, I would suggest that if we find lead, further testing should take place using traditional testing methods.  Or, the manufacturer can change materials and have us further test.  If we find lead, it starts all over again.  If we don’t find lead, why would you require more testing?  This should be part of the remedial action plan for the reasonable testing program.

XRF gives manufactures a mobile, non-destructive means for identifying if elements are present or not present.  Further analysis of the spectrum detail gives us evidence if the elements are present or not present. 

What am I suggesting?  I believe that XRF analyzers gives businesses the appropriate testing results to use for a reasonable testing program on children’s products that are not painted or metal children’s jewelry.  (I believe we will be able to provide accurate quantification for children’s products in the future)

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to use a technology that is non-destructive and readily available to test children’s products for lead and other regulated heavy metals?  Logically speaking, if there is not a requirement for specific testing on non-painted or children’s jewelry types of items (i.e. plastic toys), wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that XRF could be used to create certificates of conformity and thus be part of a reasonable testing program?

The requirements set out by the CPSC, in my opinion, can be completed with XRF testing and information provided by the manufacturer.

What are your thoughts about this issue?

Powered by WordPress