How do you define a children’s product? This is the question that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is trying to answer and relates directly to the Children’s Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 which regulates how much lead and other potentially harmful toxicants are permitted in products designed and marketed for children 12 years of age and younger. The CPSIA also regulates how the children’s products are tested and by whom. The question of “what is the definition of a children’s product?” is unfortunately causing strife for small and large businesses that manufacture, import or sell children’s products. Businesses everywhere are asking for exemptions from this law, claiming that there products are not “children’s products.”
As a business owner of an environmental testing and software company, Essco Safety Check, who has been helping parents and businesses “know what is in their environment” since 2007, I have a unique perspective on this situation. We have performed testing services for moms and dads who are very curious and care about what is in their child’s environment. We have helped businesses that manufacture and sell their products, know what their products are made with. We understand the retailer and what concerns them, their customer and the bottom line. We have helped small business owners trying to sell quality handmade products, or the mom and pop crafter making baby products, trying to supplement their income. We’ve been involved with children’s advisory safety councils with Washington State, as well as, discussions with the CPSC, EPA and FDA about a variety of environmental issues.
With all of this insight I wanted to propose a common sense approach to the CPSIA; the definition of children’s products and how to solve this issue, reducing testing expenses, insuring safety, save businesses billions of dollars (also see), while creating jobs and improving lives.
Why do we have so many different regulations for so call “consumer products”? Why does a child’s product have a different regulation and testing requirements than medical products, ceramics, and personal care items? Do you know that medical devices, which are not considered consumer products, don’t have to be tested lead? This includes toothbrushes, dental floss, bulb syringes and surgical tubing. Do you know that ceramics in the kitchen can contain lead and cadmium and that they are regulated differently than toys?
Currently, the definition of a “children’s product” as defined by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is, a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger.
Are these children's products?
Is a football a child’s product? What about model trains? What about Halloween costumes? What about tooth brushes? What about bounce homes? What about ceramics that children eat off of? Do you see where I’m going with this? There would be a lot of specifics to make this definition accurate. Is a science kit, which is intended for learning, a child’s product? If so, then the paperclip in this product needs to be tested for lead, but if a teacher walks into an office supply store and buys paperclips in a box, those don’t need to be tested. If a lamp has childish embellishments on it, it needs to be tested for lead, but that same lamp without the embellishments doesn’t need to be tested.
Please read and article by Jennifer Kerr of the Associated Press and an article by Andrew Martin of the New York Times
Children have access to most, if not all, products in the home that are not considered children’s products, other consumer products and non-consumer products. Wouldn’t it be easier, more prudent, and to the benefit of everyone’s health if we just said, “we don’t want lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and other potentially harmful heavy metals and chemicals in products other than…”? Is it possible that the constant exposure of these heavy metals is contributing to our decline in academics (math, science and English scores) or to disorders such as autism and ADHD?
Don’t get me wrong, there are some beneficial usages for lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals, but not in toys or other children’s products, or ceramics a child drinks out of or eats off of. What about a pregnant woman, do we want them to have access and exposure to harmful heavy metals? I think that all people should want to limit their toxic exposure from these potentially harmful elements we find in our homes or at work. Why do we find lead in toys, ceramics and jewelry? We even find lead in protein drinks! Is it because corporations are trying to save a penny here and a penny there? Does it make sense that we permit these potentially harmful heavy metals in the consumer products and medical devices used daily by ordinary people, including children and pregnant women?
If we start to think like this, we do not need to define what a children’s product is, and only define what materials or which certain items do not need to be tested for these heavy metals. If we test products in our environment that we interact with, our children and even our pets interact with, we can reduce potential toxic exposure. This doesn’t just mean toys! It should include our schools, daycare centers, what’s in our kitchens, what’s at the hospital and the like. Wouldn’t you want to live in a home with the least number of potentially harmful items, especially homes with children and pregnant women?
Do you know that the CPSIA requires that all children’s products must be tested by a third party independent accredited laboratory? These laboratories use a destructive, expensive testing method, typically ICP-MS or AAS to look for lead and other heavy metals. Typical costs can range from $50 to $300+ per test. Unfortunately, not all manufactures have to abide by this rule, Mattel applied and was granted the ability to do their own testing in-house (in my opinion, this creates a huge market advantage to them and harms the small business owner). Other large manufactures/importers have also asked the CPSC to be exempt from having to use a third party independent accredited laboratory and therefore they could control their testing expenses more while be self monitored.
As far as testing to ensure that products “children’s products” and all other consumer products and non consumer products we interact with don’t have lead we should utilize low cost, accurate, portable technologies to reduce the overall testing expenses. This would create a reasonable testing program for consumer and non-consumer products.
If we started to test all products that citizens use in the home or at work for lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and other heavy metals with X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers, a non-destructive, scientifically accurate, low-cost testing system, we could effectively reduce the potential for harm while reducing overall testing costs. The use of XRF analyzers with appropriate data collection and analysis can become a screening platform to test for heavy metals. This can help businesses be in compliance with CPSIA regulations, while reducing their testing costs, helping get products to market faster, and putting thousands of people to work, creating small businesses to help other businesses. Did I mention that if we test all products, we’d reduce our overall toxic exposure?
If a manufacturer has their raw materials or products tested with XRF analyzers and no lead is found, why would you need to do further expensive, destructive testing? However, if lead or other potentially harmful elements are found, then further testing should occur if the manufacturer wants to use that material in the product they are selling.
If we start to think like this, then we realize that we don’t need to define what a child’s product is, but rather products in general and the materials that they are made of. I would hope that the surgical tubing a child or pregnant woman uses at a hospital has been tested for lead and other harmful metals and chemicals. I would hope that the toothbrush a pregnant mom uses is tested as strictly as her child’s toothbrush. I would hope that coffee cup a child uses for their hot chocolate is tested for heavy metals and that those regulations are as stringent as a children’s product. I would hope that the soccer field made of field turf is tested for heavy metals and that the levels are below what is for children’s products.
If we use common sense, reducing the amount of toxic materials in our environment, combined with a low-cost, accurate, screening system, we could reduce testing expenses for businesses, insuring safety, creating jobs and improving lives.
Wouldn’t it be easier to apply one testing standard to the things in our environment, the toys, ceramics, jewelry, housing, paint, pocketbooks, footballs, baby bottles, etc? Why so many different regulations? Why do so many companies want to have their products not regulated like a children’s product? Are they afraid of what may be found in the materials that make up their products?
My version of common sense means that we wouldn’t need to debate what a child’s product actually is, rather, treat all consumer products and like items the same, insuring we don’t have any potentially harmful heavy metals in our homes. If we decide which materials and what products don’t need to be tested for lead because there is a benefit to the use of lead in that item, we don’t need a definition. All of this will help to reduce potential toxic exposure to children, pregnant woman and everyone else, don’t forget about the workers making the products, all of this insures safety. Other benefits include the creation of jobs, businesses helping businesses, the reduction in overall testing costs and improving lives.
What do you think?
Share
