Taking aim at toxic toys

By Chuck Riley

, Feb 18, 2009, Updated Oct 30, 2009 (1 Reader comment)

ADVERTISEMENTS

Toxic toys have been on the forefront of many parents’ minds. When a parent chooses to spend their hard-earned money to buy a toy for their child, it is expected that that toy is safe.

However, as we have seen in recent months, this is not always the case. The quality of a toy is only as good as a company’s quality control policy. Knowing this, the Federal Government has called for tighter regulations on the selling of products designed for use by children.

The Oregon Legislature is working hard on passing legislation that will further encourage safe consumer/business practices. HB 2367, if passed, will ban the selling of toys that contain chemicals known to be harmful to children. As vice-chair of the Consumer Protection Committee, I will give my strong support for this bill to ensure the safety of all Oregonians.

Despite government safeguards, it is important to be self-informed about any products that are harmful. The Oregon state government has many online resources to help parents who have concerns about toy and product safety. As a state representative and as a parent, I encourage all parents to subscribe to the product safety newsletter.

While we know of the dangers of lead in child toy products, we may not be aware that phthalates are also common in children’s products. Phthalates are used as additives in plastics to create a more durable product; however, phthalates have been proven to cause cancer and are harmful to children, even in small amounts. A complete list of all recalled products can be found at www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prerel.html (This website is part of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.)

Because many people may not have access to online resources, I encourage those who know of a recall to share that information with friends, families, and neighbors. If we work together, we can ensure that all the products children use are safe.

State Rep. Chuck Riley (D-29th District) represents Forest Grove, Cornelius, and Hillsboro.

Facebook	Digg	Del.icio.us
Newsvine	Stumbleupon	Reddit

Reader comments

Re: Taking aim at toxic toys

CPSIA is a witch hunt.

I think we all agree that laws need to be based on reality.

CPSIA has resulted in the throwing away of thousands of books published before 1985. It has made the business of reselling these books a risky business. Testing these books is out of the

question - no one can afford it. Even the ALA is considering closing libraries to children 12 and under.

These are dire results. Any law effecting such results MUST be backed it up with real data.

Is there any real data supporting the danger of these books? There appears not to be. It appears that exactly zero children have been hurt by these books. But they are all hurt by the loss of these books.

Millions (perhaps hundreds of millions) of dollars worth of ATV's have been made illegal by

CPSIA. All over the country these ATV's have been pulled from showroom floors at great financial loss.

These are dire results. Any law effecting such results MUST be backed it up with real data.

Personally I don't like ATV's. I find them obnoxious. But if we're going to outlaw them it

ought to be for a good reason. So is there any real data supporting the danger of lead in

these ATV's to children? There appears not to be.

I realize the the requirements for third party testing have been delayed. But they will come

into effect eventually. When they do the unit testing requirement of CPSIA will result in billions (with a b) of dollars of duplicate testing. The company I work for sells hundreds of

items to artist and crafters many thousands of who make items for children. If they do the

testing that will be required by CPSIA the price will run into the millions of dollars. And we are just one small business for which this is true. These artists and crafters will not do the testing - because they can't. They will either operate illegally or close up.

These are dire results. Any law effecting such results MUST be backed it up with real data.

So is there evidence that unit testing makes sense across the board. No, there isn't. In some

cases unit testing does make sense. But in the majority of cases it does nothing but waste

money. In those cases a verifiable component testing system would provide every bit as much

safety at far less cost.

I have not seen any evidence coming from the proponents of CPSIA that supports its sweeping

nature. Instead they seem to fall back on the "whatever it takes for our children" argument.

That is one of those absolutist arguments that is long on emotion but short on meaning.

Approximately 1000 children die every year from drowning. Should we do "whatever it takes" to

prevent this. What exactly would "whatever it takes" mean in this case? No swimming for

children 12 and under? Fencing off all lakes, ponds, rivers, oceans? Only sponge baths for

children? All of these fall under the umbrella of "whatever it takes". Do they make sense?

There is simply no significant case where "whatever it takes" has any real meaning. In the end we must make decisions, draw lines, make compromises. It is imperative that the decisions we make, the lines we draw, and the compromises we make, be informed by reason.

Any law based on hunches, assumptions, and hearsay will probably do more harm than good. Any

law that is so inefficient that the same result could be produced at a fraction of the cost will probably do more harm than good. I think it is clear that this is the case with CPSIA. With its tenuous relationship to reality and monumental inefficiency, CPSIA is 9 parts witch hunt, 1 part protection.