A Third of All Children’s Toys Are Toxic
A third of the 1500 toys that recently were tested by HealthyToys.org 1 contained significant levels of toxic substances, including flame retardants, lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic.
This is not just Chinese toys, they are manufactured in a number of countries, including the United States.
The massive recalls that were made during 2007 and the damaging fallout for large toy-makers evidently weren’t enough to whip some sense into toy company executives.
They still churn out dangerous toys.
What does it take?
Having to apologize to China?
Not enough.
Apologizing to parents for killing their child?
Not enough.
Having books detailing dubious corporate practices, even suggesting an executive in the company was sexually obsessed with their own products?
Not enough.
There still is a whole range of dangerous chemicals in toys from a large number of manufacturers.
Maybe these companies realize that their credibility has sunk so low that they see no point in investing in product safety. Things cannot get any worse.
If you need proof that you cannot trust any industry to prioritize health and safety over profits, look no further. It is no secret that these chemicals are dangerous, and this is especially true for children. You could consider it short-sighted for an industry that derives all profits from sales to parents and children to sell products that may cause permanent harm to children. Why do they still do it?
Are they unaware of the dangers?
No, when the industry are pressured by regulation, they lobby to stop or relax the regulation or allow the sale of dangerous products to go on for as long as possible. Dangerous toys were hurried out on the market before the new Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulations went into effect in February 2009. 2
EFFECTS OF THE NEW CPSC REGULATION
This legislation is very popular with the public, but it has created an uproar among owners of small sized toy businesses which fear they may have to go out of business. They claim the legislation is going to be a blow to manufacturers of safe nontoxic toys such as handmade wooden toys because of the costs associated with testing and labeling. You could say that this is just an unwarranted fear and that the interpretation and implementation of the legislation will take such a form as to make sure this do not happen.
Don’t count on it! The legislation may very well be designed to have that effect.
Why?
The uproar with lead paint in toys from China was mainly caused by large multinational toy companies prioritizing low prices over safety. They made a lot of money on these cheap and toxic toys but managed to shift some of the blame for the toxic paint to the Chinese manufacturers.
Did the large toy companies get hurt when the problems were discovered? Yes, and this is a little surprising. Usually, in cases like this, big multinational companies that have cornered a market will only see a temporary dent in earnings curves, making this kind of reckless cost-cutting strategy a worthwhile exercise. People forgive and forget. The shear inertia of their sales apparatus overwhelms any long-term opposition. But this time they went to far.
How can they turn it around? Is there a way to regain the trust and at the same time deliver a heavy blow to the competition?
How about using their influence to promote a safety legislation that wipes out most small businesses that compete with the multinationals? There is a multitude of small toy-companies, creating unique handmade quality toys that in many ways stand out as a better option than the mass-produced toys, especially now.
MORE THAN JUST TOUGH LEGISLATION?
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) new regulations contain testing requirements that only are feasible for larger manufacturers. It looks like the legislation has been tailor-made to rescue the big toy companies and their reputation, destroying their competition at the same time.
Consumers are happy about this piece of tough legislation. How can the small manufacturers convince the public that they still have the children’s best interest in mind if they protest against the legislation? It appears as if someone has been very clever here.
If this is true, it means the big toy companies ingeniously have figured out a way to be rewarded for damaging the health of children all over the globe. How is that possible? Because they have the financial clout to do so. Much in the same way as pharmaceutical companies use their influence with lawmakers. Rescuing large US corporations in trouble is always a high priority in these circles.
What about the small toy-makers? Isn’t it possible to make an omelette without breaking some eggs? It is a little ironic that the very companies that were making safe nontoxic toys should end up getting hurt because the big multinational companies were producing toxic toys.
So isn’t legislation a good thing? In the best of worlds, it should not be needed. Who in their right mind would put children at risk for profit? And if consumers asked for nontoxic toys, refusing to buy anything that doesn’t explicitly state it is free from toxins, the market would provide these nontoxic toys at a competitive price.
This is not a perfect world. Yet. Things are not that simple.
And I could be completely wrong. Perhaps there are no efforts from the industry to take advantage of the situation. Unless there is rigorous testing, there is room for mistakes and a lack of knowledge causing unintended harm. Maybe the legislation needs to be tough to keep our children safe. If this means small toy-makers are in for some rough times, perhaps that is a price we have to pay?
HOW TOXIC ARE THE TOYS?
So, every third toy is toxic. How bad is it? Marginal effects?
The chemicals have been linked to cancer, learning disabilities, hormonal, developmental and reproductive problems. Children are especially vulnerable since their nervous system and bodies still are developing, and because they often put toys into their mouths.
Who is the worst offender? If you have a look at the list of worst toys at www.healthytoys.org, you will find that there is one company that appears more often than others. The same company also tops the list for the most toxic toy, a necklace containing 406,510 parts of lead per million. That’s 677-times the amount of lead allowed in paint. What company is it?
Disney.
They also make this fine chair:
Well, maybe that’s not surprising if you consider the torrent of violent animated garbage that Disney spews out these days. 3 They are apparently not content with solely poisoning the minds of children.
Ouch. That was a little unfair wasn’t it?
I don’t think so. On both counts.
TV VIOLENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE
The first years in a child’s life are the most important in shaping their personality. At this age, they are not able to distinguish fact from fiction. Even adults are affected subconsciously by what they watch. If we expose our children to 32 violent acts per hour, do we really think this is good for their development? If I want my children to learn about compassion and mercy, do I really want to expose them to TV-shows and movies where it appears to be a good thing to gruesomely kill off people left and right, or to belittle and ridicule others? And who came up with the idea to include scenes depicting torture in TV-shows aimed at children?
After exposing children to violence, they feel a need to process the traumatic experience through play, and, yes, the toy they really want is the toy associated with the violent event. They need to feel they gain control over the scary experiences.
It’s a good recipe for selling toy’s, traumatizing children.
The programming of our children is very efficient. Violent films, violent toys, violent play, violent nightmares. Lesson learnt: Violence to solve problems. Violence is easy and fun. The world is a scary and violent place.
Some seem to strongly disagree with the notion that this kind of exposure to violence at an early age might be harmful for children. One argument is that children need to be prepared for the real world which is full of conflict and violence.
Unfortunately, a large body of research shows that exposure to TV violence in childhood in part contributes to this state of affairs. Teens watching more than one hour of TV a day has been found to be almost four times as likely as other teens to commit aggressive acts in adulthood. TV habits of children have been linked to higher rates of spousal and child abuse, murder, and aggravated assault. 4
Isn’t it possible that as adults, we might in some ways be blind to the damage that is done since we already could be considered damaged in a similar way? So when we just shrug it all off, saying: “It didn’t hurt me. She can take it” — that may very well be the exact symptoms to look out for: unfeeling indifference, a lack of empathy and compassion.
There’s to much of that kind of toxic sludge around.
- 1 HealthyToys.org is a project of the Ecology Center — a Michigan-based nonprofit environmental organization that works at the local, state, and national levels for clean production, healthy communities, environmental justice, and a sustainable future. ¶
- 2 The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) ¶
- 3 Aust, Philip. “What Is Your Child Watching? A Content Analysis of Violence in Disney Animated Films: Scene I” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, TBA, San Francisco, CA, May 23, 2007 ¶
- 4 THE HENRY J. KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION, Key facts. ¶
