Know what is in your environment

May 7, 2010

Consumer Products, Toxic Toys, Children and Pregnant Women

Filed under: About the business, Health, News, Regulation, viewpoint — Tags: , , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 10:20 am

Essco Safety Check initially started in 2007 to help moms and dads “know what was in their environment.”   We wanted to provide in-home consumer product testing for moms and dads to help them make sure the toys and consumer products that their children routinely used were safe from toxicants.  Using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers and a software suite we developed for data collection and analysis looking for lead, cadmium, mercury and other heavy metals, we began providing those services. 

This was before recalls and regulations and since then the landscape has changed.  There are now state and federal regulations regarding lead and other toxicants in children’s products (Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act – CPSIA).  These regulations were passed with the emphasis on finding toxic toys at a time when several large national recalls were happening. 

Over the past several years of providing in-home inspections for consumers, assisting autistic families with knowledge about their environment and providing testing services to businesses about the products they manufacture or sell, we have become experts in understanding the relationship between consumer products, the end-user and the regulations of those products.  This knowledge base and relationships we have developed with toxicologists, lawmakers, consumers and businesses has given us a unique perspective of the entire marketplace and market cycle.

With the knowledge that we have gained, we’ve become aware that not all products that you and I believe are consumer products are in fact, consumer products.  Certain products are exempt from heavy metal testing, because these products are considered medical devices.  Both children and adults use these products and they are sold everywhere without restrictions.  Some of these products are even put directly into the mouth, why are these products exempt from certain regulations?

Understanding the relationship between a product someone uses and what that product is made of, can easily mitigate harm.  Just because a product is not considered a children’s product does not mean that a child will not use that product.  There are some good uses for lead, but not in a toy or a coffee cup or a toothbrush. 

What about pregnant women?  In a discussion I had with Steve Gilbert (he is an expert in the field of toxicology, PhD, DABT) he has shared his knowledge with me and I’m here to share it with you.

Did you know that a child and a pregnant woman absorb 30-50% of the lead they ingest.  A typical adult only absorbs about 10%.  This is because lead substitutes for calcium and the growing body needs more calcium.  This is one of the reasons that kids are more sensitive to lead exposure. Pregnant women use all different types of consumer products, including medical devices.  Do you think that they should be exposed to lead and other potentially harmful metals during pregnancy?

Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm.

Share

Essco Safety Check

May 6, 2010

Thoughts on consumer products, pregnant women and your kitchen

Filed under: Health, Regulation, viewpoint — Tags: , , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 1:47 pm

In reaction to what has been going on in the news and marketplace lately i have decided to post some thoughts based on providing consumer protection to mitigate potential harm. 

Are you aware that many OTC consumer products aren’t tested for heavy metals because they’re not considered consumer products?
Think toothbrushes, dental floss and other oral hygiene products.  Would you believe that they are not considered consumer products?  These items are considered medical devices and even thought they are designed or used by children, they do not fall within the definition of children’s products that require third-party testing for heavy metals as defined by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). 
 
Pregnant women & children absorb the same percentage of the toxins that they ingest.  Don’t you think that the products pregnant women use be regulated the same as a child’s product?
 “Pregnant women use all different types of consumer products, including medical devices.  Children and pregnant women absorb 30-50% of the lead they ingest while adults absorb only about 10% – this is because lead substitutes for calcium and the growing body needs more calcium.  One of the many reasons kids are more sensitive to lead exposure.”[1]

Contamination continues in the kitchen; do you know what is in your kitchen cabinets?
In my experience, the typical kitchen contains the most number of potentially harmful metals and toxins.  Lead and other heavy metals have been found in cutting boards, plates, coffee cups, serving utensils, pots and pans and other typical kitchen items.  If a ceramic has a chip or crack in the glaze, there is the potential that toxins could be leaching into the food or beverage that you ingest. 

                                                 ———————

My name is Seth Goldberg and I own an environmental testing and software company, Environmental Services & Solutions Corporation (Essco Safety Check).  We specialize in using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers and our own proprietary software to identify and analyze potentially harmful and regulated heavy metals (elements like lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic and others) in consumer products, housing and various other materials.  Our clients include moms and dads, homeowners, businesses, industries and governments who want to “know what is in their environment.”  We have been providing these services since 2007 and have been involved in three national recalls, including taking part in an AP investigation about cadmium in children’s jewelry in January 2010. 

The recent recall in children’s OTC products, spurred my concerns that some typical consumer products which are purchased OTC and are routinely used by all consumers, including children and pregnant women, are not considered consumer products and thus are not subject to particular regulations that implore safety and mitigate harm.  I can supply specific data and links to all information mentioned above.

You can learn more about our company at www.essco-safetycheck.com 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

[1]  Steven Gilbert, PhD, DABT

Share

Essco Safety Check

April 16, 2010

Warning for homeowners, child care facility operators and school’s built before 1978.

Filed under: News, Regulation, viewpoint — Tags: , , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 8:57 am

Beginning April 22nd, 2010 a new federal law (Renovation, Repair, and Painting – RRP) established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will require any contractor that disturbs lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities or schools, built before 1978 to be certified and follow specific work practices to prevent lead contamination. 

You, as a homeowner, child care facility operator, school administrator or a contractor, need to ask a few questions to see if the new rules will apply. 

Are you going to do any remodeling, repair or painting on a property (home, child care facility or school) that was built before 1978?  If so, the contractor performing the work must be certified and follow specific work practices to prevent lead contamination.

Common remodeling, repair or painting activities such as sanding, cutting and demolition can create hazardous lead dust and chips by disturbing lead-based paint.  Lead is most commonly ingested by dust, but can also be found in soil, your water or household items (toys, ceramics, jewelry, etc)

Lead is a harmful toxicant that can be especially dangerous to children under six.  It can affect the central nervous system and affect the development of children’s brains.  It can reduce IQ scores and cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems.

According to the EPA 24% of homes that are built from 1960 – 1978 contain lead based paint, 69 % of homes built from 1940 – 1960 contain lead-based paint and 87% of homes built before 1940 contain lead-based paint.  The EPA estimates that 37.8 million pre-1978 housing units and child-occupied facilities are still in use today.

If you are going to do or have any remodeling, repair of painting on a pre-1978 property than you have a few options. 

1.)  You can assume that your home, child care facility, or school contains lead and thus follow lead safe work practices.
2.) You or your contractor can test for lead using an EPA-approved testing kit, typically available at hardware stores.
3.)  You can hire a certified professional (certified lead inspector or risk assessor) to determine if your property has lead or lead hazards.

Regardless of the age of the home, contractors should; contain the work area, minimize dust and cleanup thoroughly.  The RRP Rule is simply designed to assure that workers, homeowners and children are protected from the harmful effects of lead.

There are some exclusions and an opt-out provision to the RRP Rule, they include:

1.) Renovations that affect only components that have been determined to be free of lead-based paint.
2.) Activities that disturbs fewer than 6 square feet interior or 20 square feet exterior.  This excludes window replacement, demolition and projects involving prohibited practices
3.) Work done by individuals in housing they own and occupy.

The Opt-out provision is:
1.) Homeowners may opt out of the rule requirements if:
 a.) They occupy the housing to be renovated,
 b.) The housing is not a child-occupied facility, and
 c.) No child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides there

Homeowners may still request lead-safe work practices and I would highly urge all contractors to use lead-safe work practices.

As a certified Lead Inspector, an owner of an environmental company (Essco Safety Check) and a person with extensive knowledge about the personal environment, there are a few other things that you should know to help protect you, your family, your tenants, children and workers.

The current approved method to test for lead by a contractor is to use an EPA Approved Lead testing kit and there must be a written determination by a certified renovator using a lead test kit.

 Acceptable test kits will have to meet the following criteria:
1.)  Phase 1: Be capable of determining the presence of lead at levels >/= 1.0 mg/cm2 or > 0.5% by weight; and should have no more than 5% false negative results.
2.)  Phase 2: Criteria above; and should have no more than 10% false positive results.

For a list of approved testing kits, click here.

OR

Have a certified inspector or risk assessor provide a written determination that lead-based paint is present of not present.

As a certified lead inspector and risk assessor, my choice of testing equipment is X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers.  They are a portable, handheld, non-destructive testing source to determine if lead and other harmful elements are present or not present. 

XRF analyzers can provide a much greater degree of accuracy to determine lead; with our analyzers we can determine if there is as little as 10ppm and review each test spectrum to ensure that lead is present or not present.

The costs for testing using XRF are slightly more than the approved testing kits; however, you receive much more valuable information about your environment.

Here is the scenario;

You hire a contractor who is certified, but they use the approved testing kits and determine that there is not lead over the “limit standard” of 5000ppm.  Because of this, the contractor gets right to work and does his job, but wants to save time and money and doesn’t use “lead safe work practices” because he has determined lead is not at the action level.

BOOM the wall is cut, dust is flying, and a day or two later your remodel is done.

I’m going to step back a second and talk regulations of lead paint standards.

In 1978, lead paint standards were adopted and the maximum allowable amount of lead in paint was 600ppm.

2008, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) was signed and began regulating the amount of lead in children’s products.

2009 under the CPSIA the maximum allowable amount of lead on a painted surface for a children’s product is 90ppm.

2010 90ppm is the maximum allowable amount of lead to be sold in paint for consumers (there are some exemptions)

2010 the current amount of allowable lead in an area to be remodeled, 4999ppm.

Now back to our scenario;

Your contractor has determined, using an approved testing kit that there is less than 5000ppm of lead in the area to be remodeled.  But is lead really there? If so, how much lead is really there?  Are there any other potentially harmful elements such as cadmium or mercury?

It is possible for there to be almost 5000ppm of lead, which is currently 4910ppm more than is permitted today and ok to not use lead safe work practices.

XRF gives a much greater detailed image of what is present or not present.  Using X-Rays the analyzer will determine if lead is present on older, deeper paint surfaces.  With this knowledge you can help protect your family, children and the workers performing the remodel.

I see an opportunity where regulation can spur job creation, which ultimately benefits the health and wellbeing of children, homeowners and contractors.

What do you think of the RRP Rule?

Share

April 6, 2010

Do you know what is in your kitchen?

Filed under: Health, News, viewpoint — Tags: , , , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 11:05 am

Let me start by saying that I am not trying to scare anyone, I just want to provide information about what we find during environmental inspections that my company performs.  It is ultimately up to you to understand your environment and make educated decisions as to what you and your children are exposed to. 

In the past few years, we have heard all too frequently about lead and now cadmium found in children’s toys and children’s jewelry.  Children’s products are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) which limits the amount of certain heavy metals in consumer products designed for children 12 years of age and younger.  In my experience, toys typically have lower amounts and frequency of possessing lead, but do you know what is in your kitchen?

Recently I was out performing an in-home inspection specifically looking for lead for a family that had three young children, all with lead found in their blood.   My company (Essco Safety Check) specializes in using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers, which is a non-destructive, accurate, efficient testing source to determine if specific elements such as lead, cadmium, arsenic or mercury are present in virtually anything (toys, ceramics, jewelry, soil, structures, etc).   In this particular home, there was actually very little lead found in the children’s products or in the structure of the home. 

When we provide testing, we typically want to test the items that people, specifically children are routinely exposed to.  I want to test the things that children put in their mouths, the items that they have regular contact with and could potentially be a source of harm.  I never hope to find lead or other harmful toxicants, but it is typically found in the average home in a variety of different products, substrates and locations.  I’m not here to say that these toxicants are going to harm or have harmed anyone; however, if present they maybe a potential source of harm.

After testing most of the children’s products that are used regularly and specifically placed in their children’s mouth, I proceeded to the kitchen to further analyze items that could potentially be the source of lead in the children.  Now in my experience, the kitchen typically possesses the most amounts of potentially harmful metals, specifically in ceramics.  This home did have some heavy metals in their ceramics, and in one case, a ceramic piece of cookware was found with lead over 5500 PPM. 

With a ceramic, the most important thing to look at (besides the elemental makeup) is the condition of the glaze.  If the condition of the glaze of a ceramic is not compromised, you should not have to worry about the makeup of that ceramic.  However, if the ceramic in question has a compromised glaze (there is a crack, chip or blemish) you should take note of what that ceramic is made of.  Unfortunately the only way to know what the ceramic is made of is to have it tested.

The ceramic found with lead did have a compromised glaze, and the owner decided not to use this item any more (it was given to me to use as an educational display piece).  But in this kitchen I found something that I’ve never seen before.   I found lead in a plastic ladle! 

Black plastic ladle found with lead (750 PPM)

Black plastic ladle found with lead (750 PPM)

I’ve seen lead all over the place in the home and specifically the kitchen, but not in a serving utensil.  I’ve found lead and other toxicants (cadmium and arsenic) in ceramics, pots and pans and even a cutting board.  I’ve had conversations with toxicologists and elemental specialists from the FDA.  Do you know that your coffee cup is regulated by the FDA (inside of the cup) and CPSC (outside of the cup)?

The amount of lead found in the ladle was approximately 750 PPM.  This level is over twice the total content level for a children’s product (CPSIA), but this product is not regulated as a child’s product.  I’m not suggesting that this ladle is even the source of this specific case of lead found in children’s blood, but lead was found in a product that is exposed to a variety of different heat conditions , as well as, the potential for acids (like tomato soup) and children are exposed to  and this type of product.

As I said at the beginning, I am not here to scare anyone; I am here to provide insight and knowledge.  I’m not saying that the ladle or cookware was the cause of lead in the children from this home, but lead was found in the kitchen and in consumer products that children are exposed to on a regular basis.

Do you know what is in your kitchen?

Share

April 2, 2010

Autism Day! Autistic families are more aware of their environment!

Filed under: Health, News, viewpoint — Tags: , , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 12:46 pm

Today…on Autism Day, April 2, 2010 I wanted to repost a blog I’ve written about autistic families and their desire to know what is in their environment. I’m going to do that below, but the first thing I did today was post a comment on CNNs blog by Dr. Sanjay Gupta 

My goal of the post was not to scare anyone or sell my services; I simply want to provide knowledge and insight that I have obtained over the past two plus years of providing testing services. In all my testing, there has been one constant, when I test for parents of autistic children and they inform me of their children’s blood metals, I do find the same metals in the consumer products and items these children are exposed to and regularly use; to me this a big coincidence. As I said in my initial comment, I’m not saying that heavy metals are the cause of autism but I have found them in 100% of autistic homes I’ve tested. I suspect that these metals found in the blood of these autistic children are masking the ability to properly treat autism and until you remove these metals from these children’s environment, you may not even be able to treat autism properly. I apologize if you thought my intention was to scare or make money, I’d much rather be out of business because consumer products didn’t have potentially harmful toxicants. I really just wanted to add to the conversation and hope that potential studies can be done. I have data on consumer products and I want to help anyway I can, right now, information is what we provide so people and businesses can make educated decisions as to what is in their environment and ultimately what they are exposed to.

On August 7th, 2010 make sure you visit the Jubilee Farm in Carnation for Washington’s 10th Annual Autism Day. We will be onsite providing free consumer product testing and if our grant from the EPA comes in, we will provide free blood lead screening to all participants.

Here is my reposted article:

“Autistic families are more aware of their environment”

I was recently asked, “Who are my biggest clients?” My business provides elemental information to a variety of different customer bases; consumers, businesses, industries and government. Each group has different reasons for the knowledge we provide. But there is one specific sub-group which seems to be most concerned about their environment, parents of autistic children.

The topic of autism and heavy metals is generally only discussed in a small circle of people. To be honest my knowledge of autism and environmental concerns, prior to 2007 and the start of my business (www.essco-safetycheck.com), was very limited about autism and about environmental concerns, “paper or plastic?” But my perceptions have changed dramatically, not only about autism and environmental concerns but how we can help people to improve lives with knowledge of your environment.

When I answered the question, of course I mentioned a few names of businesses, but when I thought about it I said that the one group of people who are my biggest clients and most concerned about the environment are families with autistic children.

I was asked “Why?” Now, I first want to emphasize that I am not a doctor or scientist, maybe I’m becoming a researcher, but this is just my insight and opinion.

For two years I have been to many consumers homes providing XRF testing, in-home assessments for potentially harmful elements in consumer products (toys, ceramics, jewelry, I want to test the things that you have a direct relationship to), housing, structures, soil, you name it and I’ve probably tested it. Dozens of these homes have been homes for families with autistic children.

These families have a desire to know what is in their environment. Their children have health and behavioral issues; in each and every home with autistic children (that I have been to), the parents also inform me that their children have heavy metals in their blood. Not just one metal, but several, in one home I was shown the child’s blood metals lab report and 12 or 13 different metals were present, including; lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, antimony, tin, chromium, copper, and others.

What I find interesting is that in each and every home with autistic children (that I have been to and provided XRF testing), I find the same metals in the consumer products that are used around the home, by the children, that the parents have informed me are in the children’s blood.

I am not saying that the metals in the consumer products are the cause of autism, but I have found the same metals in the consumer products in the home of the autistic child that the parents tell us are in their children’s blood. Is it coincidence? I’m not sure; I have had my beliefs formed from over two years of providing testing services to help people know what is in their environment.

I suspect we are all subjected to low levels of all of the elements we find. Maybe it is the lack or inability for these children to properly process, excrete these metals (and chemicals when you think of all that we are potentially exposed to) we are all bombarded with. Most people can process the metals, but for those that can’t?

If we can help to inform parents what is in their environment, these parents can potentially reduce or eliminate exposure to the same metals found in their children’s blood. If you remove the harmful metals from the child’s environment, will they eventually be removed from the child’s blood?

The parents of autistic children are concerned because even low doses of some of these metals can be very harmful to the health and wellbeing of their children. How are these metals getting into their children? I can’t exactly say, but we are here to help people know what is in their environment and reduce potential toxic element exposure.

Essco Safety Check

Promote Your Page Too

March 2, 2010

Daiso hit with $2.05 Million Civil Penalty for lead-laden toys

Filed under: News, Regulation, viewpoint — Tags: , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 4:45 pm

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has announced that the U.S. Subsidiaries of Daiso, a Japanese retailer, has agreed to pay a fine of $2.05 Million civil penalty and stop importing children’s products due to alleged violations of federal safety laws.  Daiso must also demonstrate to the CPSC that it has sufficient knowledge of and is in compliance of CPSC safety standards and testing requirements.

Daiso California LLC and Daiso Seattle LLC have had a total of five recalls for 698 toys and other children’s products since 2008.  These recalls were for lead, phthalates, strangulation and choking hazards.  This is a relatively small number of products recalled compared to the several million recalled by Mattel in 2007, of which Mattel was only fined $2.3 Million.

“This landmark agreement for the injunction sets a precedent for any firm attempting to distribute hazardous products to our nation’s children,” Commission Chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum said.  “We are committed to the safety of children’s products, and we will use the full force of our enforcement powers to prevent the sale of harmful products.”

A senior executive at Daiso said the company accepts the fine and wants to make sure the products it imports are safe.

I would recommend that Daiso utilize X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers as part of a reasonable testing/safety program to help determine if their products have harmful regulated metals such as lead or cadmium in their consumer products.   XRF Analyzers can help detect if elements are present of not present, they are non-destructive, accurate and a cost effective solution that can helping save businesses money while providing information that can ultimately lead to compliance with regulations.

You can visit Daiso’s web page about their recalls at www.daisorecall.com

February 25, 2010

One Small Business Rises to the Challenge; Creating Jobs, and Stimulating Small Business

Filed under: About the business, News, Regulation, Technology, viewpoint — Tags: , , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 11:55 am

If i ran the government – Permit XRF screening with the CPSIA

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

February 10, 2010

What small businesses are telling me will happen if XRF is not approved for testing and compliance with the CPSIA

Filed under: About the business, viewpoint — Seth Goldberg @ 11:45 am

Owning an environmental technology company (Essco – Safety Check) and providing XRF testing services to businesses has provided me with some very valuable insight into what may happen to small businesses impacted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) when the stay of enforcement is lifted on 2/10/11.

The CPSIA is a law that regulates the amount of lead and other harmful toxicants in children’s products.  There are approximately 700,000 manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers that are impacted by this law and approximately 40% of these businesses have 0-4 employees working for them.  Current approved testing methods are destructive in nature, very costly and time consuming from only a select group of laboratories worldwide.  XRF is a mobile, non-destructive, low-cost, fast and accurate way to determine if elements (including those regulated by the CPSIA) are present or not present in virtually anything. 

In over two years of business operations I hear the same four scenarios over and over from small business owners who are impacted by the CPSIA.

1. They will try and test using approved testing methods to the best of their ability.  However with the cost of this destructive testing method, they will have to reduce the number of products that they make because they can’t afford to pay for all the required testing.
2. They are going to wing it and get as much information from the manufacture/supplier of the components that they use; they can’t afford to do any testing.
3. They are not going to test at all; too expensive
4. They are going to use XRF as their “reasonable testing” method and use the results to be in compliance and create the GCC (General Certificate of Conformity) regardless of the laws.

How is the CPSIA impacting you and your decisions about the products you manufacture or purchase?

January 22, 2010

The Potential Economic Impact of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

Filed under: Regulation, Technology, viewpoint — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 1:16 pm

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.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress