This report found that four childhood environmental disorders (lead poisoning, asthma, pediatric cancer and neurodevelopmental disorders) cost Michigan on average $5.85 billion per year.  That is just the cost for these disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders include; cognitive impairment, autism and cerebral palsy. 

These costs include both direct and indirect costs; direct costs include things such as prescriptions and hospitalizations, indirect costs include such things as parental wages lost due to their children’s missed school days and loss of lifetime earnings.  The methodology used to develop these estimates was originally published by Landrigan et al. (2002).

The overall annual cost estimate for Michigan is $5.8 billion, with a range of $3.65 to $6.68 billion.

These cost estimates represent approximately 1.5% of Michigan’s Gross domestic Product every year.

If people and businesses can learn what is in their environment, they can mitigate harm.  If you can reduce the amount of exposure you have to a particular environmental toxicant, not only can you improve your quality of life, it could be potentially economically advantageous.  

Safety V. Money

I can only speak about lead poisoning and autism, as those areas I have been greatly involved in.  Essco Safety Check has been providing non-destructive environmental testing for potential harmful toxicants such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and other heavy metals by utilizing X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers and software to collect and analyze the environment around us.  Autistic families contact us because they claim their children have a variety of heavy metals in their blood and we can quickly identify a variety of heavy metals non-destructively, quickly, efficiently and accurately.  We specialize in helping people and businesses know what is in their environment.

A study that I wrote earlier this year, The potential economic impact of the CPSIA, was submitted US House of Representative, House Energy Commerce Sub-Committee for Consumer Protection by the Handmade Toy Alliance as “Allowing XRF testing for CPSIA compliance could save $3.7 billion and save small businesses”  This study looked at new federal regulation, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and how businesses are affected by the regulations and how XRF technology can help them reduce costs in testing, getting products to market faster and creating jobs.

If we can now combine these two visions of protecting children and saving small businesses, we are not only doing the ethical thing, were are going to be creating jobs, improving lives, while protecting children, creating jobs and saving people, businesses and government billions of dollars.

Essco Safety Check is proud to be a leader in XRF testing services and environmental software solutions as well as, equally proud to help protect children, homeowners, businesses and government.

Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm.

Share

The current administration has challenged businesses across the country to help create new jobs.  Environmental Services & Solutions Corporation (Essco Safety Check), a Redmond, WA based company steps up to the government’s challenge by:

• Proposing the creation of thousands of jobs. 
• Helping to stimulate business; especially small businesses impacted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).

The CPSIA (Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act) is a law that regulates the amount of lead and other harmful toxicants in children’s products.  There are approximately 700,000[1] manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers that are impacted by this current legislation; approximately 40%[2]of these businesses have 0-4 employees working for them.

Currently, XRF testing is not a government approved testing method.  Current approved testing methods are destructive in nature; which means the tested product must be destroyed during the testing procedure.  This method of testing is very costly and the test results could take weeks to obtain.  In addition, products can only be tested by a select group of government approved testing laboratories worldwide.

XRF testing equipment is completely portable; it can be easily transported to the testing site.  Testing using XRF is non-destructive, low-cost, fast and an accurate way to determine if elements (including those regulated by the CPSIA) are present or not present in virtually anything.  If XRF technology becomes a government approved screening process, it is estimated that thousands of jobs could be created nationally.  These jobs include certified consumer product inspectors, support staff and office positions.

A direct result of XRF screening is to prevent potentially harmful products from reaching the retailer’s shelves and eventually the homes of consumers. 

By utilizing XRF analyzers to screen consumer products, businesses could save money on government mandated testing expenses and be able to get products to market faster.  For example, traditional testing is destructive in nature, very expensive and time consuming; it costs, on average, $100 per test (each product may need 5 tests) and can take weeks for results.  XRF testing costs on average $2 to $7 per test and usually provides results within 48-hours.

Hypothesis:  If XRF Analyzers and technology are approved for screening heavy metals in children’s products and with a conservative estimate of 5 million products that need to be tested with an average of 5 tests per item, over $3.7[3] billion dollars can be saved.  However, research has suggested that there are literally tens of millions of products that are potentially impacted by the CPSIA regulation and, with that number in mind, there could be savings in the tens of billions of dollars for business all while creating thousands of jobs.

ESSCO-Safety Check proposes that by using XRF technology:
• Thousands of jobs can be created.
• Businesses will be in compliance with CPSIA regulations.
• Mandatory testing expenses are reduced for business.
• Products get to market faster.

It’s a win-win situation for consumers, the environment and business.
www.essco-safetycheck.com

[1] www.naics.com North American Industrial Classification System
[2] www.census.gov  U.S. Census Bureau
[3] http://handmadetoyalliance.blogspot.com/2010/02/allowing-xrf-testing-for-cpsia.html Handmade Toy Alliance Blog – Cross Post from Essco Safety Check

Considering that data that we have collected for over two years assisted with the initial investigation with the AP reporter, I thought I would look further into the data about cadmium and share this information. 

The information is only about consumer products and was collected by using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers to look for a variety of heavy metals by using X-Rays to determine if elements are present or not present in virtually anything.  Over 8000 test results have been compiled.

The data present in this article is looking at a total content for cadmium found at 40 Parts Per Million (PPM) or greater.  In 2008, Washington State passed the Children’s Safety Product Act (CSPA) which regulated lead and cadmium in total content (Lead at 90 PPM and Cadmium at 40 PPM) which are stricter standards than were established by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).  Considering that total content of cadmium is not part of the federal regulation, and my company is based in Washington State, I have decided to use that number as my standard for this data.

My desire is not to scare anyone with this information; I am just trying to provide some awareness.  Just because we find some harmful metals in everyday items does not mean that they are going to harm you, however, they are present and that means there is a potential for harm.  With knowledge and awareness you can mitigate harm.

XRF analyzers provide awareness, fast, efficiently, accurately, non-destructively and very economically.

During our testing we have found cadmium and lead in a variety of different substrates including; metal jewelry (necklaces, rings, pins and pendants), glass, plastics, ceramics (cups, plates and bowls), cooking equipment, furniture, toys, handbags and even personal care items.

In total we have found 3.64% of all items tested appear to have cadmium.

Age of the item also appears to make some difference.  In items that were brand new, we have found 2.75% of these items to have cadmium, yet used “older” items have approximately 4.88% cadmium.

Children’s products in general have less cadmium than the average with 2.63% found with cadmium.

Of all substrates tested the three with the highest percentages of items found with cadmium are ceramics, metals and glass. 

Ceramics are typical items found in the kitchen environment; coffee cups, plates, dishes, cooking equipment and the like.  Of all ceramics tested we have found cadmium in 12.03% of these items. 

Metal substrates refer mostly to jewelry, but some metals found with cadmium include pots and pans.  Of all metals tested we have found cadmium in 9.09% of these items.  However, two points standout when the data is further evaluated concerning metal.  The levels of cadmium found in these items appear to be much greater than other substrates and when we breakdown the results by age, children’s products appear to have a slightly higher average then overall metals.  I have seen cadmium over 10% in many of these items.

Glass is typically found in two types of products, jewelry (beads) and kitchen items.  Although we find that glass as a substrate appears to have the most overall percentages found with cadmium of any one substrate, these levels appear to be much lower than jewelry.  Overall, with glass substrates tested we have found 30.68% to contain cadmium.

Once again, I just wish to provide awareness, my goal is not to scare you!

Please don’t go run to your kitchen and throw away your dishes and coffee cups.  With ceramics, the most important thing is the condition of the glaze.  If the glaze appears to be in good condition with no cracks, chips, blemishes, than you really shouldn’t worry.

This was just a snap shot of cadmium found in the typical home, with typical consumer products, using XRF analyzers.

If you know what is in your environment, you can mitigate harm.

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

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

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.

{{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.

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?

Label "Not intended for children 12 and under"

I have a suspicion as to this reason and it has to do with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and an attempt to sidestep certain testing and certification requirements.

Ok, I do have a certain advantage over most people; I do have access to an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer which provides elemental information (from 15 to 94 on the periodic chart) in a non-destructive testing method.  As an owner of an environmental technology company, Environmental Services & Solutions Corporation (Essco – Safety Check) we specializes in helping people know what is in their environment, we have provided consumer product testing for moms and dads, businesses and government.

While recently testing, a few new items (specifically metal jewelry) were tested and these warning labels were present on the items.  The test results showed that cadmium was present in two separate items; one necklace was found (using XRF analyzers) to contain 118,988 PPM of cadmium or 11.89%, the other necklace 64,103 PPM of cadmium or 6.41%.

I should mention that cadmium is one of the regulated elements within the CPSIA.  The regulation is based on a different testing method (typically ICP-MS) which is a testing methodology that uses acid to mimic ingestion.  The regulation for cadmium is based on soluble content limit and has a regulation of 75 PPM.  XRF is a total content testing method and is not capable of quantifying soluble content, but does look at total content. 

Within this one piece of jewelry there appears to be 1586 times the level of cadmium found at the soluble content limit level.  I’m not going to suggest that the cadmium in this item has a soluble level greater than 75 PPM, however, cadmium is a very harmful element, is known to be a carcinogen and is present in this item.

Are we to presume than an adult who purchases this item will ensure that a child never wears it?  You should note that just because an item has something potentially harmful, does not mean it will harm someone.  But that harmful element is present in the item and is a regulated element for children’s products.

Is it ok for a manufacturer or importer to simply label a product “Not intended for children 12 and under” on an item, and thus sidestep testing?  Jewelry is handed down from mom to daughter; there are dress up days, girl’s night out, and many occasions that a young girl or boy for that matter will borrow moms or dads jewelry.

But it appears not to just be jewelry and other consumer products are being marked in the same fashion, “Not intended for children 12 and under.”

As I mentioned, I was out shopping recently, probably like most people around the holiday season.  I was out at a large retailer looking a knickknacks’ trying to decide on a few other gifts for family.  While shopping I picked up several other items that were merely decorative in nature (ornaments, figurines, ceramics, etc) and most were marked in the same fashion “not intended for children 12 and under.”  Several of these items were painted and there is regulation about lead in paint.

Let me say, I did not buy any of these items so I cannot say that they have lead or other metals in them regulated under the CPSIA, however, it does make one think. 

Why is an item now marked “not intended for children 12 and under?”  Is it to sidestep testing requirements for painted surfaces under the CPSIA?  Is it to sidestep testing requirement for children’s jewelry under the CPSIA?

Let me see if I can break this down for everyone.

Consumer products do contain a variety of elements and some of these elements are potentially harmful.  Particular elements are regulated for products designed and marketed to children 12 and under, as well as other safety standards.  Certain products that I have discussed including children’s jewelry and painted items have further requirements for testing including certification and specific testing methods. 

Here is some general information on regulation:

16 C.F.R. 1303 – Ban of Lead-Containing paint and certain consumer products bearing lead paint. Here is an excerpt from Sec. 1303.2 Definitions.

    (a) The definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052) shall apply to this part 1303.
    (b) For purposes of this part:
    (1) Paint and other similar surface-coating materials means a fluid, semi-fluid, or other material, with or without a suspension of finely divided coloring matter, which changes to a solid film when a thin layer is applied to a metal, wood, stone, paper, leather, cloth, plastic, or other surface. This term does not include printing inks or those materials which actually become a part of the substrate, such as the pigment in a plastic article, or those materials which are actually bonded to the substrate, such as by electroplating or ceramic glazing.
    (2) Lead-containing paint means paint or other similar surface coating materials containing lead or lead compounds and in which the lead content (calculated as lead metal) is in excess of 0.06 percent by weight of the total nonvolatile content of the paint or the weight of the dried paint film.

Here is an excerpt from Section 3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act:

SEC. 3. [15 U.S.C. 2052]
(a) For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term ‘‘consumer product’’ means any article, or component part thereof, produced or distributed (i) for sale to a consumer for use in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise, or (ii) for the personal use, consumption or enjoyment of a consumer in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise; but such term does not include—
(A) Any article which is not customarily produced or distributed for sale to, or use or consumption by, or enjoyment of, a consumer, (there is more but for purposes of this conversation, they do not apply)

On December 16th, 2009 the CPSC issued Interim Enforcement Policy on Component Testing and Certification of Children’s Products and other Consumer Products to the August 14th, 2009 Lead Limits.

On August 14, 2009, the limit for lead in paint and similar surface coatings was reduced from 600 parts per million (ppm) to 90 ppm.

Beginning on August 14, 2009, it became unlawful to sell, offer for sale, manufacture for sale, distribute in commerce or import into the United States any product that is subject to the new lead limits, but fails to comply, regardless of when the product was made.

The testing and certification requirements for paint sold as such and for consumer products that are subject to the lead paint limits but are not intended primarily for children age 12 and younger (such as certain household furniture items) were stayed by vote of the Commission on January 30, 2009 (see 74 FR 6396 (February 9, 2009)). With respect to these products, the stay of enforcement relating to the lead in paint limit will be lifted as of February 10, 2010. Accordingly, such products, if manufactured after that date, will have to be certified to the 90 ppm limit based on a test of each product or a reasonable testing program (There was a second stay of enforcement on December 18th, 2009 which extended that stay one more year till 2/10/11)

For consumer products that are not children’s products but are subject to lead paint limits (such as certain furniture items), a domestic manufacturer or importer may base its certification to the 90 ppm lead paint limit (when required as explained in paragraph 6 above) on its own testing of each paint used on the product, on testing by any third-party test lab, on paint certification(s) from any person or on a combination of these methods.

What does all of this mean?   Simply, all consumer products that are painted are subject to the regulations of lead paint. It appears you can get around the certification and third party testing requirements by marking an item “not intended for children 12 and under.”  All painted consumer products still subject to the lead limit standards.

As for jewelry (metal jewelry specifically), once again specific testing methods and certification are required for children’s jewelry, but if you label your products “not intended for use for children 12 and under” it appears a company can sidestep the certification and testing requirements. 

Why is a harmful element like lead or cadmium present in the products we wear, eat off of, or our children play with is beyond my logic of thinking.  I’d like you all to think and begin to notice that more and more products appear to be labeled “not intended for children 12 and under”

I can’t say if they contain lead or cadmium or other elements unless they are tested.  Manufacturers, importers and retailers are all suppose to ensure that the products they distribute meet safety regulations, but it appears that if you label your products “not intended for use by children 12 and under” you can side step particular testing and certification requirements.

How are these businesses they suppose to ensure and determine that their children’s products they sell don’t contain lead and other regulated metals when testing and certification are not yet required?

According to the CPSC, business guidance:

There are several things manufacturers can do to be highly confident that their products are compliant:

Get to know your product and the laws and regulations that affect you. Know what is and is not required of you and your products. These requirements can change. 
 
Develop sound business processes that put safety (and meeting safety standards) first. 
 
Although there may be no requirement to test and certify, you may choose to do so in the context of a quality assurance program, which ensures products will meet the requirements of the law. This may include testing raw materials, components and final products. This will also make it easier for you to meet the mandatory third?party testing and certification requirements when they become effective. For lead content testing, one solution would be to hire a qualified, trained person who can quickly screen all of your raw materials and finished products with a handheld device called an X?Ray Fluorescence (XRF) machine. 
 
If you choose not to test, ask your suppliers about the chemical/material content of their products. Seek out materials that will enable you to produce products that are in compliance.

How is a business to determine if something has lead in it before it is sold?

Resellers, in particular, need to make sound business decisions about the products they sell. As a practical matter, you must either:

Test the product; 

Refuse to accept or sell the product, which will mean disposing of it if you already have it in your inventory; 

Use your best judgment based on your knowledge of the product; or, 

Contact the manufacturer about questionable products.

It would make sense to test, rather than discard, any suspect children’s products that have a high resale value. You may want to hire a qualified, trained person in your area who can quickly screen all of your suspect products with a handheld device called an X?Ray Fluorescence (XRF) machine.

The stay is currently extended until February 10, 2011 at which time all children’s products will need to be tested and certified by a third-party laboratories, which utilize specific testing methods and standards.

My belief is that X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) should be more applicable within the regulations.    XRF analyzers can identify all heavy metals within the CPSIA regulations of children’s products; they are mobile, non-destructive and provide fast, accurate, inexpensive testing.

Logically, if you use XRF to screen all materials, substrates and colors of a child’s product and XRF proves that the regulated elements (i.e. lead, cadmium, antimony) are not present, why would you require destructive, expensive testing?

Logically, if you use XRF to screen all materials, substrates and colors of a child’s product and XRF proves that the regulate elements (i.e. lead, cadmium, antimony) are present, than further testing by traditional testing methods should be required.

In my opinion, X-Ray Fluorescence offers an opportunity for businesses to ensure that their products don’t contain lead and other harmful metals while reducing business expenses, getting products to market faster, helping comply with regulations and creating jobs.

XRF analyzers are great for helping people and businesses “know what is in their environment!”

Antimony is regulated under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) along with arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and selenium for soluble “leachable” content limits.  The CSPIA also regulates lead for total content, as well as, various other toy safety standards.

Good Guide uses an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzer from Niton to detect a variety of heavy metals.  XRF Analyzers are great for determining the total content limits; however, XRF cannot accurately determine soluble level limits.  Soluble testing required under the CPSIA is set under testing method ASTM F963, this testing method is essentially a weak acid test that digests the material and mimics ingestion.

The CPSC did this form of testing to determine the levels of antimony and other metals in the Zhu Zhu Pet Hamsters that it tested.  It found all soluble content levels and total content level for lead were below standard limits.

This is not to say that this product doesn’t contain antimony, but there is a difference in the two limit standards (soluble content and total content). 

Let me take you a bit deeper into this world of children’s product testing.

First, the CPSIA basically requires that any children’s product (designed and marketed to children 12 and under) needs to meet certain requirements for safety.  If the product is manufactured overseas, then the importer or ultimately the retailer is required to ensure that all products do not contain specific quantities of certain metals (mentioned above) in addition to other safety standards (example: small parts, painted surfaces, phthalates, etc).

The current regulation says that (a portion of the CPSIA is under a “Stay” and this stay comes to an end on 2/10/10, meaning other regulations with go into effect) painted surfaces and children’s jewelry (metal) must be tested by an accredited 3rd party laboratory that uses specific, destructive testing methods to determine total content for lead and soluble content levels for all metals are in compliance with the regulation.  This test essentially will provide information to create a General Certificate of Conformity (GCC), which is required under the law for all CPSIA regulated products beginning 2/10/10.

Currently, all other children’s products still need to conform to the regulations, meaning that these products (plastic toys for example) do not contain more than 300 Parts Per Million (PPM) of lead, as well as the soluble limit standards for all metals.  However, no specific testing method for determining the levels of these metals in total or soluble content is given by the CPSC and no GCC is required.  

All of this will change on 2/10/10 when all children’s products will need to be tested by the approved 3rd party laboratory’s that use specific, expensive, destructive, older but well established methods to test for these heavy metals.

X-Ray Fluorescence Technology is being looked at by the CPSC as a potential means of providing compliance testing, but currently, XRF is only a suggested tool to screen for these heavy metals.

If XRF is capable of identifying if these elements are present or not present (which it is, there is only a question of quantification with XRF), XRF can be a tool in the system of consumer product safety that can help businesses, consumers and impact the CPSIA. 

XRF can help businesses by non-destructively, accurately and inexpensively complying with regulations.  This will help businesses reduce testing costs dramatically, ensure the safety of their products, get products to market faster and ultimately create jobs.  More testing, screening of products helps consumers ensure that what their children are playing with, what they are eating off of are safe from potentially harmful toxics such as lead and antimony.

How is this possible? 

Logically, if XRF can identify these elements simply as either present or not present in consumer products, we have a means of screening.  If these regulated elements are not found, why would you require a company to pay for much more expensive, destructive testing? 

If a regulated element such as antimony was found in the Zhu Zhu Pet Hamster using XRF as a first means of testing (screening), than further testing for that element should be done, but just that element.  We are not eliminating the testing laboratory, but asking for a more specific test, reducing business expenses.

In testing by Good Guide, their testing method used an XRF Analyzer, their results showed that lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, selenium, chromium and barium were not present, all elements part of the regulation. 

When this story first broke a few days ago, the CPSC quickly jumped in to test this product.  Using the testing methods within the CPSIA, the CPSC found that the soluble level of antimony was below the regulation standard.

Basically the CPSC confirmed the results of Good Guide; there was just a slight misinterpretation with Good Guide’s results.

Once again, this does not mean that antimony is not present, but it was determined to have passes all safety standard tests.

I believe that this is a teachable experience and that X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers have the ability to help businesses comply with regulation and reduce business expenses and ultimately create jobs, simply by helping people and businesses know what is in their environment.