Know what is in your environment

July 28, 2010

The Price of Pollution; how XRF testing can protect people and save billions of dollars

Environmental toxicants are harmful to people, the environment and economics.  Several studies have been done to estimate the cost of these toxicants and the diseases that they cause.  Michigan is the latest to produce a report showing direct and indirect costs associated with environmental related diseases. Michigan Network for Children’s Environmental Health and the Michigan Ecology Center has produced a report that gives an estimate of environment-related childhood disease in Michigan.  You can review this report here.

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.

  • Lead Poisoning: $4.85 billion (range $3.2 to 4.85 billion) annually
  • Childhood Asthma: $88.4 million (range $29.5 to $103.2 million) annually
  • Pediatric Cancer: $17.3 million (range $6.9 to $34.6 million) annually
  • Neurodevelopmental Disorders: $845 million (range $423 million to $1.69 billion) annually
  • 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

    Essco Safety Check

    July 11, 2010

    Essco Safety Check provided free XRF testing at Redmond Derby Days / Impact-Eco Event

    Redmond Derby Days is an annual event that is held in Redmond, Washington.   Typically, Redmond Derby Days is filled with bicycle races, food, games and events for children, this year for the first time in the history of this event, the city included an Impact-Eco event.   Local companies such as Puget Sound Energy, Cascade Water, the City of Redmond, Essco Safety Check and others shared in their environmental knowledge.

    Essco Safety Check provided free X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) testing to anyone that wished to have their toys, ceramics, jewelry and other consumer products non-destructively tested for heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury.  Of the estimated 10,000 people that attended Redmond Derby Day, several hundred visited Essco Safety Check’s booth.

    Working the booth

    In addition to just providing free XRF testing, Essco Safety Check provided a display of consumer products, that we have found over several years of providing testing, that have potentially harmful elements (lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury) in them.  As well as, discussing these items, we provided insight into the “individual, the item and the relationship”; the relationship between people and their environment, and how knowledge of your environment can mitigate harm. 

    Toxic Toys

    Essco Safety Check also displayed and handed out brochures and publications from the EPA, Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Health and King County Hazardous Waste Management.  We also spoke to several small business owners who are impacted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and homeowners affected by EPAs Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule

    Overall, we provided free testing to many local residents and those that did not bring items to be tested but were still interested in having something tested, we provided a coupon for free testing at our offices.  Of the items we did test for people, we found lead in jewelry warn by children, plates, coffee cups and other ceramics, in musical instruments, several toys and other consumer products.  Several of these items were also found to contain cadmium.  The highest amount of lead found was over 400,000 parts per million in some jewelry warn by a child.

    Toxic consumer products

    Toxic consumer products

    Essco Safety Check is proud to provide free testing at community events.  If you missed us yesterday and would like to have something tested for free, please join us Saturday, August 7th, 2010 at Washington Autism Day located a Jubilee Farm, in Carnation, WA from 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM

    If you have a yellow bumbo seat, we are still offering free testing at our offices, please contact us at info@essco-safetycheck.com and in the subject line, please write “Yellow Bumbo”
     
    Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm.

    Share

    Essco Safety Check

    May 28, 2010

    Lead legally permitted in toothbrushes and other “consumer” products

    Filed under: Health, News, Regulation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 10:22 am

    Over 1000ppm of lead found in yellow colored bristles of a toothbrush.  This product is not in violation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) which regulates lead in children’s products.

    Do you know what a consumer product is?

    Unfortunately, toothbrushes and other patented early intervention dental products which are designed or intended for children 12 years of age or younger are in fact, not “consumer products.”  Because these products are not “consumer products,” they do not fall within the definition of children’s products that require third-party testing. Thus the lead limits in the CPSIA do not apply to this product. 

    This product is regulated by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and currently there are no specifications for levels of heavy metals in dental devices.

    There are many products consumers would consider a “consumer product” which are in fact not “consumer products” and not regulated as a consumer product.  Many products fall into exemptions including; toothbrushes, toothpicks, dental floss, flatware (knives, forks, spoons, baby spoons, serving utensils, etc.), ceramics (plates, cups, bowls, etc), cutting boards, bulb syringes, surgical tubing and more. 

    Each of these products can be directly used by children and pregnant women, yet none have to be tested for the regulation standards of a children’s product, which means they can contain more than 300ppm of lead legally.

    Essco Safety Check is an environmental technology and software integration company; utilizing X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers (among other data collection devices) and a proprietary software platform to collect and analyze environmental data.  Essco Safety Check is now coordinating with both the CPSC & FDA on this issue.

    Share

    Essco Safety Check

    May 11, 2010

    Another recall: Children’s jewelry contains high levels of cadmium

    On Monday, May 10th, 2010, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a voluntary recall in cooperation with Claire’s Boutiques Inc., of Hoffman Estates, Ill.  A charm bracelet “Best Friends,” which are three bracelet sets with silver-colored chains and metal pendants contain words “Best,” “Friends” or “Forever” and a heart lock and key charms with different colored stones. 

    High levels of cadmium was found in children's jewelry

    These bracelets were recalled because they contain cadmium.  The CPSC did not specify how much cadmium was found in these bracelets.  There were approximately 19,000 units sold exclusively sold at Claire’s stores nationwide from February 2009 to January 2010 for about $12.  They were manufactured by Dae Yeon Industries Corporation of China.

    Consumers are warned to immediately take these bracelets away from children and return the heart lock charms or the entire bracelet to any Claire’s for a full refund or replacement product.  Contact Claire’s toll-free at (866) 859-9281 between 9am and 5pm ET Monday through Friday or visit www.claires.com

    This recall is a continuing effect of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and an investigation that began back in 2009 with the Associated Press (AP) and data that was supplied to the AP by Essco Safety Check.  In October of 2009, Essco Safety Check presented data on consumer products and how much lead and cadmium were found in toys, ceramics, jewelry and other consumer products at the Northwest Children’s Environmental Health Forum.  This data had been collected with our proprietary software suite (to collect and analyze data) and by using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers to test consumer products for moms and dads in their homes, as well as, for businesses selling children’s products.

    Over several months of data analysis and sharing, the Associated Press began their own investigations which lead to the first recall for cadmium found in children’s jewelry in January 2010.  Cadmium is a known toxicant and carcinogen; it can be very harmful to children.  This recall is the third that has been prompted by the AP’s reporting, and Essco Safety Check’s initial data.  No recall had ever been issued for cadmium in consumer products prior to this year.

    Claire’s and other retailers have begun to add testing procedures to ensure that their suppliers are testing for cadmium.  There are no total content standards set for cadmium in the CPSIA for children’s jewelry, unlike lead which has a limit of 300 parts per million (ppm).  In testing done by the Associated Press, their tests showed the bracelets from Claire’s contained up to 91% (910,000 ppm) of cadmium.

    Several states have begun to take action including California, Connecticut, Illinois and Washington (Washington State is not currently enforcing their regulation; the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) has been superseded by the federal regulation do to interstate commerce).  The CPSC has also begun to screen imports of jewelry at the 10 largest ports in the United States by using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers to look for heavy metals including cadmium. 

    Unfortunately, I’m fairly certain that this will not be the last recall we hear about cadmium or children’s products.  It can make one wonder why do we even permit lead, cadmium and other harmful elements or chemicals in products we use regularly, specifically products for children and pregnant women.  If you are concerned about any consumer products and would like them tested, Essco Safety Check will be participating in several different community events this summer.  Checkout our website for details.

    Share

    Essco Safety Check

    May 6, 2010

    Handmade Toy Alliance Press Release

    I am reposting a blog/press release from our friends at the Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA).  Several board members met with the House Energy Commerce Sub-Committee on consumer protection last week to discuss new pending regulations, the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act (CPSEA).  Essco Safety Check completely agrees with the HTA that alternative testing methods, such as X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers, can help with the survival of small businesses.  XRF analyzers and the data they provide can help keep businesses compliant with regulations, lower testing costs, protect children and help get their products to market faster than traditional, expensive and destructive testing methods.

    Please visit www.handmadetoyalliance.org for more information

    HTA Press Release: “We strongly urge both sides to work through their differences and move forward on this important reform of the CPSIA”

    The Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) testified on April 29th at the

    HTA in Washington D.C. April 29th, 2010

    House Energy and Commerce Sub-Committee hearing regarding the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act (CPSEA). HTA Founder and Vice President, Dan Marshall (Peapods Natural Toys -MN), Board member Jolie Fay (Skipping Hippos – OR) and Board member Randy Hertzler (euroSource – PA) traveled to DC to participate in this very important process.

    “The HTA has endorsed the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act”, Marshall stated during his testimony before the Sub-Committee. “The provisions of the bill which allow alternative testing methods for small batch manufacturers are imperative to the survival of our members.” Marshall went on to share various aspects of report language that would further serve to clarify Congress’ intentions with the amendment.

    In the few days since the hearing, however, Democrats and Republicans on the committee have signaled that they might not be willing to negotiate a bipartisan bill. “We strongly urge both sides to work through their differences and move forward on this important reform of the CPSIA,” said Jill Chuckas (Crafty Baby -CT), HTA Secretary. “The livelihoods of thousands of families hang in the balance.”

    In addition to testimony from the HTA, the Sub-Committee heard from representatives from Goodwill Industries, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), American Apparel and Footwear (AAFA), Motorcycle Industries, Consumers Federation of America (CFA) and Rick Woldenberg (Chairman, Learning Resources).

    Following opening statements, there was a question and answer period which focused around the difficulties of small batch manufacturers and specialty retailers to understand and comply with the CPSIA. “We were pleased to hear a series of questions surrounding harmonization with EN-71 which is of special concern to those in our membership who import product directly from the European Union,” stated Hertzler. “Dan (Marshall) had the opportunity to discuss this issue in depth.”

    HTA Board members also had the opportunity to visit with many of the House Committee members, as well as a number of members of the Senate Commerce Committee. “It was an incredibly busy few days, squeezing in as many legislative visits as possible,” Fay shared. Marshall added “Our focus was to share the HTA story and collective concerns with a large number of Congressional members, furthering our efforts to provide relief to small batch manufacturers, crafters and specialty retailers. It has been clear from the beginning that we were not the intended targets of this legislation, but unfortunately, our members have the most to lose. It is time to remedy these unintended consequences of the CPSIA.”

    The House Sub-committee will now decide whether or not to move forward with mark up and presentation of the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act (CPSEA), as the bill has been named, to the House floor. “Our focus now is to help this process proceed quickly,” Marshall continued. “It has been a very long road to common sense changes to the CPSIA. The Subcommittee members now need to openly discuss this bill, come to an agreement and move forward. The time for waiting is over. Congress needs to move swiftly to fix the issues with the CPSIA.”

    Share

    Essco Safety Check

    April 30, 2010

    The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing about the “Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act” on Thursday, April 29, 2010.

    Thursday, April 29th beginning at 10am, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection held a hearing to discuss the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act (CPSEA) and the impacts of this pending regulation on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA)

    Witnesses included:

    •Rosario Palmieri, Vice President for Infrastructure, Legal, and Regulatory Policy, National Association of Manufacturers
    •Paul Vitrano, General Counsel, Motorcycle Industry Council
    •Jim Gibbons, President and Chief Executive Officer, Goodwill Industries International
    •Dan Marshall, Handmade Toy Alliance
    •Rachel Weintraub, Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel, Consumer Federation of America
    •Steve Levy, American Apparel and Footwear Association
    •Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc.

    The CPSEA is a bill that would provide exceptions to lead and phthalate prohibitions and regulatory relief for thrift stores, small manufacturers, and other businesses.  

    The legislation seeks to resolve some of the concerns raised by various interested parties by addressing unforeseen impacts of CPSIA. To this end, the legislation provides three major forms of relief:

    • New regulatory flexibility for CPSC to exempt certain products, components, and materials from the lead limits in CPSIA, with limitations to ensure protection of public health;

    • Relief for thrift stores and other retailers through an exclusion for certain used children’s products from the lead limits, and a modification of the lead limit, set to take effect in August 2011, so that it will apply only to newly manufactured products;

    • Relief for small batch manufacturers and other businesses by allowing the commission to approve alternative testing requirements for certain small batch manufacturers, by requiring CPSC outreach and assistance to small businesses, and by providing that the law’s phthalate limits shall not apply to inaccessible component parts.

    The legislation also provides for a narrow set of improved and clarified authorities to allow the CPSC to carry out the law.

    You can read the Committee Print of the CPSEA here.

    You can review the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection hearing of the CPSEA held on Thursday, April 29th, 2010 here

    Witnesses answered questions for almost two-hours, including testimony from Dan Marshall.  Dan spoke eloquently about the needed use of alternative testing methods, specifically X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers.  Dan also submitted an economic impact analysis that I (Seth Goldberg, President, Essco Safety Check) wrote back on January 22, 2010 entitled “the potential economic impact of the CPSIA” and the Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) reposted this blog on February 11, 2010 “Allowing XRF testing for CPSIA compliance could save $3.7 Billion and save small businesses.”

    If anyone has any question about this analysis that I wrote, please feel free to ask me questions.

    Share

    Essco Safety Check

    April 27, 2010

    Small environmental testing company impacts one of the world’s largest businesses, Wal-Mart.

    For almost three years, Environmental Services & Solutions Corporation (Essco – Safety Check) has been providing elemental testing services to moms & dads, homeowners, businesses and industries, to help them “know what is in their environment.”   We have performed tens of thousands of tests and have collected extensive data about consumer products and the elements that are present in them.   We are a small company trying to help people and businesses, improving lives and create jobs all with the use of X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers and a proprietary software suite to collect and analyze data.

    In October 2009, Essco Safety Check participated in the Northwest Children’s Environmental Health Forum by presenting data on heavy metals found in children’s products.  This data was analyzed for specific elements (cadmium and lead) and then the results were shared with Associated Press reporter Justin Pritchard over November and December of 2009.  Here is a link to our typical findings from an in-home inspection.

    On January 10th, 2010, Justin Pritchard wrote an article “AP: Feds probe cadmium in kids’ jewelry from China.”  Apparently, the Associated Press conducted their own independent testing (based on initial data supplied from Essco Safety Check and HealthyStuff.org) of children’s jewelry purchased in New York, Ohio, Texas and California.  Their testing was conducted by chemistry professor Jeff Weidenhamer of Ashland University of Ohio, who has worked with the CPSC in the past. The results found cadmium in children’s jewelry at a level of 100,000 PPM (10%) or greater in 12 percent of the 103 items tested. 

    Children's jewelry recalled for cadmium 1/29/10

    Children's jewelry recalled for cadmium 1/29/10

    On January 29th, 2010, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a voluntary recall of children’s metal necklaces because of high levels of cadmium.  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.  These items were sold exclusively at Wal-Mart Stores nationwide from November 2009 to January 2010 for approximately $5.
    Yesterday, April 26th, 2010 Wal-Mart issued a statement on cadmium and new testing standards that all Wal-Mart suppliers will have to comply with.  These standards are more stringent than the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), and all toys, child care articles, children’s costume jewelry and children’s jewelry craft making kits tested on or after April 9th, 2010 are now required to meet Wal-Mart’s new voluntary standards.

    The new testing standards will be modeled similarly to the European Union, EN 71-3:1995 “Safety of toys – Part 3: Migration of Certain Elements” but will not affect what is currently on the store shelves.

    In short, this means that the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, is now imposing new testing standards to help protect consumers from cadmium; this is a very good thing.  These new standards are taking affect immediately and will help prevent toxic toys, jewelry and other children’s products from reaching the marketplace.  There is a feeling of “wow and awe” that a small environmental testing company (Essco Safety Check) who shared data about children’s products and the heavy metals we found in them, can impact the largest retailer in the world.  The data shared lead to an investigation by the Associated Press and now, today, Wal-Mart has issued new testing standards that all suppliers must meet.

    Do you know what is in your environment?  Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm.

    Share

    Essco Safety Check

    April 20, 2010

    Run, play and take the lead home with you

    Filed under: Health, News, Regulation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 8:52 am

    Spring is here and the parks are full of families with children, soccer games being played, and people enjoying the sunshine.  Would you suspect that running or playing on a field can be potentially harmful to you or your children and pets? 

    I’m a creature of the sunshine and when I get an opportunity to go to the park, I tend to go.  Last week I went to a local park and tossed the football around with a friend on a field made of field turf. 

    When I got home from playing at the park and took off my shoes, I found a bunch of small black pellets in the bottom of my shoes and on my socks.  I was curious as to what they were made of, especially since I brought them home to my personal environment. 

    I happen to own an environmental technology company (Essco Safety Check) that utilizes X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers to help people and businesses know what is in their environment.  XRF analyzers are a non-destructive testing source that can identify certain elements; we use them primarily to detect heavy metals in consumer products, housing, soil, but virtually anything can be tested. 

    I decided to test the black pellets that I brought home with me to find out what they are made of.  The results showed that approximately 180 parts per million (ppm) of lead are present in these black pellets.

    The amount of lead found in the black pellets is below the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) which regulates consumer products designed for children and has a limit standard of 300ppm of lead.  The Washington State soil action level is at 400ppm, so in each case, the level of lead is below either regulation.  However, lead is present and after playing on this field, I took the lead home with me.

    Artificial field turf consist of plastic fibers and typically include an “in-fill” material which is commonly made of rubber pellets, made from recycled automobile tires, known as “crumb rubber.”

    What about children playing on that field?  What about dogs playing Frisbee?  What about bringing these pellets to your home environment?  What about when it rains and the water runoff?  I had many questions about these findings and decided a little more field work and research was needed.

    I went back to the field to collect more samples of the black pellets, and a soil sample from near the field.  I planned on running around the field turf for some exercise, primarily to collect samples.  I walked to the corner of the field, where a corner kick would take place from and tossed my knapsack down.  I was just about ready to run when I noticed that the white painted area of the corner kick section was dotted with black specks.  I got down on my hands and knees and realized those black specks were “crumb rubber”.

    Collecting samples was as easy as wiping the surface of the field, but simply placing my hand or knee on the field surface, black pellets stuck to my skin.  I collected my samples of black pellets, grabbed a soil sample from an open patch of soil under a tree (I’ve seen families eat lunch there) and went back to my office to analyze the samples and contact city and state officials.

    The amount of lead found in the second sample of “crumb rubber” matched the first test results of 180ppm.  In addition to lead, zinc was also found at a level of 11% or 110000ppm.  The potential problem with zinc is potential water contamination from leaching or runoff.  The fact that zinc and lead are found does not mean that they will cause harm, but since they are present, there is a potential for harm.

    To be honest, field turf offers some benefits to the user and environment.  These fields offer all-weather playability, which results in longer playing hours.  There is reduced maintenance, including hours worked, reduced water consumption, herbicides, pesticides and equipment used.

    Unfortunately, there are some environmental concerns, specifically about potential toxicants.  Using recycled tires, “crumb rubber” as in-fill, can create some concerns, especially about the chemical composition and exposure, which can potentially harm the field users, especially children and pets.  Tires are known to contain toxic and potentially carcinogenic compounds including, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), phthalates, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, nickel, iron, zinc, manganese) and more.

    I unfortunately do not know the chemical composition of the “crumb rubber” I tested, but lead and zinc are positively present.  I additionally found levels of bromine, which can be of some concern to particular health and regulatory officials (depending on location).

    The field turf that was originally tested and found with lead had two sister fields at this park.  Testing of these sister fields showed levels of lead in the “crumb rubber” to be between 20-30ppm and the zinc levels higher in both additional fields.    These additional fields were installed more recently than the original field tested and reported with 180ppm of lead.  The soil sample collected was not found with any detectable amounts of lead (the XRF analyzer used has a lower limit standard of 10ppm for lead).

    What does all of this mean?  A synthetic field has more lead than the soil around it and that lead is easily transportable to your personal environment.

    If i went on vacation to this park, my shirt should read:  I went to this beautiful park to run and play, and all I got was lead in my shoes.

    Do you know what is in your environment?

    Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm.

    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

    March 26, 2010

    CPSC held a webinar today – A guide for small businesses for complying with the CPSIA.

    Filed under: Events, News, Regulation — Tags: , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 12:01 pm

    Today, Friday, March 26, 2010, 11:00 a.m. EDT the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) held a webinar to help small businesses understand complying with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), specifically with the Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA).

    Gib Mullan, Assistant Executive Director, Office of Compliance and Field Operations for the U.S. CPSC gave the presentation as a “flow chart” and a “guide to help” webinar attendees understand which requirements apply to their products.

    Essco Safety Check did not submit any specific questions for this webinar, but is constantly fielding questions about the CPSIA from small businesses.  It is our goal as a company to help businesses know what their products are made of using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers.

    Here are some highlights to what the CPSC presented and where to find the specific information as well as some questions asked.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————

    The first basic question is do you make a children’s product? 

    A “children’s product” means a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger. In determining whether a consumer product is primarily intended for a child 12 years of age or younger, the following factors will be considered:

    • A statement by the manufacturer about the intended use of the product, including a label on the product if such statement is reasonable.
    • Whether the product is represented in its packaging, display, promotion or advertising as appropriate for use by children 12 years of age or younger.
    • Whether the product is commonly recognized by consumers as being intended for use by a child 12 years of age or younger.

    Requirements include:

    CPSIA Section 101. Children’s Products Containing Lead; Lead Paint Rule http

    CPSIA Section 102. Mandatory Third Party Testing for Certain Children’s Products 

    CPSIA Section 103. Tracking Labels for Children’s Products 

    Statement of Policy: Testing and Certification of Lead Content in Children’s Products

    Section 101 of the CPSIA says that products designed or intended primarily for children 12 years old and younger (“children’s products”) cannot contain more than 300 parts per million (ppm) of lead in any accessible part, this is the “lead content limit.”  In addition to the 300 ppm content limit, there is a 90 ppm limit on lead in paint used on certain products such as furniture and children’s toys.

    The CPSC issued guidance in August, 2009 to determine accessible parts.  

    There have been determinations to identify materials whole lead content will not exceed 100 ppm and they include natural products, dyed and un-dyed textiles, cotton, wool, wood, paper, precious and semi precious stones.

    But they do not include metal or plastic fasteners such as buttons, screws, grommets or sippers used in apparel or elsewhere.

    Section 102 – Mandatory third party testing for certain children’s products.

    Children’s products must be certified based on testing by a recognized third party test laboratory.  These requirements are being phased in over time.

    Lead limits on most children’s products do not have to be certified until 2/10/2011 However, children’s jewelry must be certified to the 300 ppm lead content limit if that product was manufactured after 8/14/09 and any painted product would need to meet 90 ppm lead content limit.

    Third-Party Testing of Children’s Products

    The new legislation imposes an additional third-party testing requirement for all consumer products primarily intended for children twelve years of age or younger. Every manufacturer (including an importer) or private labeler of a children’s product must have its product tested by an accredited independent testing lab and, based on the testing, must issue a certificate that the product meets all applicable CPSC requirements.

    CPSC is given authority either to accredit laboratories (“third party conformity assessment bodies”) for doing the required testing of children’s products or to designate independent accrediting organizations to accredit the testing laboratories, with one exception. The Commission itself must accredit laboratories that are controlled by the manufacturer of the children’s product in question. To assure their impartiality, government labs must also meet strict standards of independence. The CPSC must maintain an up-to-date list of accredited labs on its web site. CPSC has authority to suspend or terminate a laboratory’s accreditation in appropriate circumstances.

    The third-party testing and certification requirements for children’s products are phased in on a rolling schedule. The statute requires the CPSC to issue laboratory accreditation regimes for different categories of children’s products. Once the CPSC issues the laboratory accreditation requirement for that category of children’s products, each children’s product in that category that is manufactured more than ninety days after that date must be tested and certified to the applicable requirements. The schedule for CPSC to issue the laboratory accreditation requirements and the certification schedule is set forth on the timeline shown in the chart below.

      CPSC Publishes Accreditation Procedure Third Party Testing required
    Lead Paint September 22, 2008* December 22, 2008
    Cribs and Pacifiers October 2008 January 2009
    Samll Parts November 2008 February 2009
    Metal Jewelry December 2008 March 2009
    Baby Bouncers, Walkers and Jumpers March 2009 June 2009
    300 ppm Lead Content May 2009 August 2009
    CPSC Children’s Product Safety Rules June 2009 September 2009

    To find a recognized lab for the specific scope of inspection you are looking for please visit http://www.cpsc.gov/cgi-bin/labapplist.aspx, make sure that the lab is certified for your specific test requirements.  Not all labs are certified for all testing procedures.

    Section 103 Tracking labels for children’s products

    Section 103(a) of the new law requires manufacturers to have a tracking label or other distinguishing permanent mark on any consumer product primarily intended for children twelve and younger. The tracking label must contain certain basic information, including the source of the product, the date of manufacture and more detailed information on the manufacturing process such as a batch or run number. The scope of this provision is quite broad in that it applies to all children’s products, including, but not limited to, items such as clothing or shoes not just toys and other regulated products. Congress modified the requirement for tracking labels with the phrase “to the extent practicable” recognizing that it may not be practical for permanent distinguishing marks to be printed on small toys and other small products that are manufactured and shipped without individual packaging.

    The Commission has the authority to issue a rule further defining the detail required in the tracking labels. Moreover, the Commission also has the ability to require in the future that the additional information contained on tracking labels for children’s products be expanded to cover all consumer products.

    Section 103(c) of the new law also addresses the types of claims a manufacturer can make regarding its compliance with mandatory or voluntary safety rules. After October 12, 2008, no product packaging, advertisements or labels can refer to any safety standard unless the product complies with that standard.

    Effective Date: The requirement for tracking labels is effective one year after the date of enactment or August 14, 2009. The requirements prohibiting advertising claims are effective 60 days after enactment or October 13, 2008.

    Here is the Statement of Policy: Interpretation and Enforcement Of Section 103(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

    Which requirements apply?
    Is your product a children’s article or furniture that bear paint or similar surface coating?
    Is your product intended for under 36 months?
    Is it a child care article for children under 4?
    Durable nursery product for children under 5?
    Is your product a toy?
    Is it clothing or children’s sleepwear?
    The paint limit standard under the CPSIA, Section 101 is 90 ppm and took effect on 8/14/09.   It applies the same to items as previsouly sold under the 600 ppm limit

  • Paint sold to consumers
  • Articles intended for children
  • Household furniture
  • Children’s products manufactured after 8/14/09 must be certified to the 90 ppm limit if they bear paint or similar surface coatings.

    “Small parts” ban for all items that are intended for children under 36 months of age.

    Small parts are “as received” or under “use and abuse” testing.  Basically you can have little parts when you open a package or if it is tested for example using a pull test or drop test, small parts can’t be the result from the test.
     Small parts are those fitting ht a small part cylinder (it is close to the size of a toilet paper roll, but a little smaller)

    Here is the regulatory summary for small parts regulations, toys and products intended for use by children under 3 years old

    Here is the regulatory summary for lead contain paint

    Here is the regulatory summary for children’s sleepwear

    Here is the regulatory summary for clothing textiles

    Other regulatory summaries can be found here

    Phthalates

    Section 108. Products Containing Certain Phthalates

    Good news!  Phthalate testing is for plasticized components only.  The limit is 1000 ppm for the 6 phthalates.

    There was brief mention of:

    Section 104. Standards and Consumer Registration of Durable Nursery Products

    and

    Section 106. Mandatory Toy Safety Standards

    Some questions included:

    When does a choke hazard warning need to be used?
    If you make an item for children under 3 years old, small parts are banned.  Toy or games for children 3 to 6 years old, but not all products, some craft products are not thought of as toys or games and thus a choke warning is not needed.

    Tracking labels, what does ascertain mean? 
    Ascertain means information about the product doesn’t’t need it to be on the product as long as the consumer has the ability to get to the information 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  No phone numbers unless that phone is manned 24 hours a day.  A web solution is the best choice if you don’t want to put this information on your product.

    Children’s jewelry, is it the same definition as California? And are hair accessories considered jewelry? 
    Hair accessories are not considered jewelry by the CPSC, the they are considered accessories by California.

    Screen printing?  There is not just one type of screen printing.  The key to regulation is to the process and if that process creates a surface coating? 
    If that process creates a surface coating than that would require a lead test.  Many if not most create a coating and subject to the 90 ppm lead limit.  If the process/ink/dye sinks in to the fabric than you are subject to the 300 ppm limit.  If you have dye, you can do determinations and take advantage of these rules and say a dye is ok.  You must be confident and knowledgeable about the products.

    This was just some highlights from today’s webinar.  The CPSC will be posting a link to the video, when they make it available, I will post a link to it here.

    If you have any questions, please contact us at info@essco-safetycheck.com

    Share

    Essco Safety Check

    Promote Your Page Too

    Older Posts »

    Powered by WordPress