In light of the recent lead in toys news, I checked in with the Sierra Club to get their take on how government agencies are performing in terms of getting a handle on the problem. You may recall that last year the Sierra Club sued the Environmental Protection Agency in federal court as a way of pressuring the agency to take action in protecting kids from lead toy jewelry. The EPA and the Sierra Club reached a settlement. Under the agreement, the EPA agreed to contact 120 companies with a letter addressing the hazards of lead exposure. The EPA also agreed to alert the Consumer Product Safely Commission to the problem of inadequate quality control measures that have allowed hazardous lead jewelry into the country.

In response to my inquiry for an update, I received an email from Tom Neltner, Co-chair of the National Toxics Committee for the Sierra Club. Regarding the settlement, he notes:

We were not excited about the resolution. CPSC had begun rulemaking to only address children’s metal toy jewelry. We thought quality control was a problem that went well beyond that type of product. But legally, we were not certain that we could force EPA to take action. So we deferred to the judgment of the agencies. Given the recent events, we see an even more urgent need for action by either or both of the agencies.

In answer to my question about why the CPSC doesn’t fine companies who repeatedly import and sell toys made with lead:

As I understand it, CPSC can fine for violations of its rules. It has rules on lead in candle wicks and the use of lead-based paint as a product or on furniture or children’s toys. But CPSC is loathe to use that authority. The recent recalls by RC2 and Mattel violated these rules. My impression is that the reluctance has three roots:

1. From staff limitations. Enforcement takes resources they don’t have. They only have 400 people in the entire agency.
2. An agency philosophy of working with companies.
3. A lack of a quorum on the Commission that makes it impossible for the Commission to take official action. The Commission vacancies have left the action crippled in a situation like this.

I can certainly understand the CPSC’s staff issues (they’ve been without a director for over a year now, and the President’s recent nominee, you may recall, withdrew his name when it was revealed that he accepted a large severance package from his longtime employer, a powerful manufacturer’s lobby).  And the philosophy of working with businesses on voluntary standards and enforcements is certainly more attractive than the constant crackdown.

But the lead toys from China problem is too unwieldy for a “gentlemen’s agreement” approach. Just in terms of lead in children’s jewelry, a recent federal inspection found that roughly 20% of the products out there pose a lead hazard. That equals hundreds of thousands of items on store shelves and in vending machines today. And of the 17.9 million pieces of jewelry recalled since 2005, 95% were manufactured in China. (I guess not too surprising, since these days it seems everything on the shelf at Toys R Us was made in China.)

In his email, Mr. Neltner of the Sierra Club noted that he’d “love to see CPSC publicly report on the effectiveness of the recalls. Kids don’t want to lose their valued toy. And only a portion of parents will act.” That’s been my issue as well. First off you need for the parent to hear about the recall, then to recognize that the hazardous item is in her house, then to find it. If all this occurs, she’ll likely throw the item out rather than approach the company for a refund, so the financial hit on the company that put the lead kids’ jewelry or toy onto the store shelves is going to be pretty minuscule.

For example: Twentieth Century Fox distributed over 700,000 bonus charms in a Shirley Temple movie package. The charms were then found to contain dangerous levels of lead. As part of their recall effort, Fox offered a free DVD to consumers who returned the charms. Only 6.7% were sent back. A Fox spokesman noted, “We wanted them all back, we did everything we could do to get them back.”

They key has got to be keeping lead out of children’s jewelry and other kids’ gear in the first place.

The CPSC is now considering issuing a formal ban on children’s jewelry containing lead, instead of merely setting an enforcement standard. 195 pages of letters and comments have been submitted to the agency on the proposal. Of all the input, only one letter opposes the ban. It’s from…the government of China!

In the letter, a deputy director general at China’s General Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine argues that lead in children’s jewelry is not hazardous if it’s covered by a protective coating, and that the proposed regulations would “increase the cost of producing and inspection of the manufacturers of children’s metal jewelry, and bring unnecessary obstacles to trade.”

My first reaction to reading that was, frankly, boo-fricking-hoo. Of course, I’m no economist, so I’d be open to hearing why we have to turn a blind eye to lead in kids’ jewelry so as not to put an undue burden on the Chinese economy.

But more to the point, can’t we all agree, as consumers, that we’ll gladly spend 50 cents more for a kids’ bracelet if we can be sure that it’s not a lead poisoning hazard? Where’s the controversy?

Posted by MommaSteph.