Guest blogger Katie Rojas-Jahn is the program assistant for the Food and Health program at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and for the Healthy Legacy Coalition.

With so many products available to consumers today, how do we know that what we’re buying is safe? Most of us assume that products have been tested by someone, somewhere along the way, to make sure they won’t cause us harm.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case for many of the consumer products on the shelf today. 

The reason is that most chemicals used in consumer goods don’t have to be tested for their safety and the federal government is often unwilling or unable to take action to prevent harm before it happens.

The 2008 legislative session provided an important opportunity to address product safety at the Minnesota Legislature. More than two-thirds of the legislature supported a bill that would have made homes across the state a little bit safer.

But as it turns out, eliminating toxic chemicals from consumer products was not a high priority on the list for Governor Tim Pawlenty, who, despite strong bi-partisan support, vetoed the bill once it reached his desk.

The Public Health Omnibus bill (SF651) contained two provisions important to protecting children’s health. The bill would have phased out phthalates, a hormone-disrupting chemical contained in PVC plastic and countless other children’s products: rubber duckies, vinyl bibs, teething rings, and more. The second provision would have eliminated a toxic flame retardant, known as “deca,” from home electronics, mattresses, and textiles.

Both of these chemicals can be harmful to health, especially to children.

Phthalates are known hormone disrupters and have been linked to adverse health effects, including reproductive problems, the early onset of puberty in girls, and disruption to the male reproductive tract.

Deca is a developmental neurotoxin that is chemically similar to another group of harmful chemicals banned in the 1970s: PCBs. Exposure to deca in low doses has been linked to brain, liver and thyroid damage as well as hormone disruption.

Who would have thought that phasing out chemicals that can cause adverse effects would be such a challenge? Representatives from the American Chemistry Council, the Toy Industry Association, and the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum — all representing large chemical and manufacturing companies — were a continuous presence at hearings for the Minnesota bill to make sure that it was.

In fact, the opposition lobby was so strong that the bill’s phthalates phase-out originally included the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA), another hormone disruptor found in baby bottles and sippy cups.  Despite overwhelming public support, BPA was later stricken from the bill in hopes of making it more palatable for the Governor Pawlenty.

The chemical industry took on the same tactics as the tobacco companies did in the 1990s: they created a sense of “manufactured uncertainty” around the science. In other words, they made their own science, didn’t have it reviewed by other scientists, and guess what? Their science shows no health effects from exposure to these chemicals.

(more…)

From MomsRising.org:

Right now, a House/Senate Conference Committee is meeting to finalize the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act (CPSC) Act which will strengthen our nation’s protections against toxic toys.  We have a critical window in the next two weeks to add the Feinstein Amendment to the CPSC, restricting the use of six toxic phthalates in children’s toys. . . . 

Our concerns are justified: Hundreds of independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies that have been generated since the 1970s link phthalate exposure to serious health effects including reduced testosterone levels, lowered sperm counts, early puberty in girls, and genital defects in baby boys. . . .  

The Feinstein Senate amendment would prohibit the manufacture, sale and distribution of children’s products that contain phthalates and protect laws enacted by the states to more strictly regulate phthalates in toys and other product categories.  The European Union and 14 other countries have already passed similar phthalate bans as have California, Washington and Vermont. . . .

The opposition to the phthalate ban is manufacturing doubt – just like the tobacco industry did 30 years ago — around science that has been firmly established by independent scientists who don’t have a financial stake in the outcome of their studies.  What’s more, it’s not the toy industry or retailers that are lobbying the hardest against this important children’s health measure:  It’s Exxon Mobil – one of the world’s largest producers of DINP – the primary plasticizer used to make soft plastic kids toys. And it’s trade association – the American Chemistry Council.  Exxon made $40 billion in profits last year – more than any other U.S. company. 

You’d think that Exxon would step up and do what is right, but again, they do need to improve on their recent $40 billion profit. Every single voice helps. Please take a moment today to express your support for the Feinstein Amendment.

Sick and tired of the product placements seeping into everything your child watches on television?

So is the Campaign for a Commerical-Free Childhood, who got together other concerned organizations — children’s media watchdogs, public health advocates, consumer groups, and child advocacy groups, including Parents for Ethical Marketing — and wrote to the FCC asking the commission to adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding product placement and integrated marketing on television.

“The diversity and breadth of this coalition reflects the growing concern that marketers are hijacking television content and foisting branded propaganda on an unsuspecting public,” said [CCFC Director] Dr. [Susan] Linn.  “The rise of embedded advertising deprives parents of the ability to protect their children from unwanted marketing influences, threatens public health, and undermines democracy.” – Press release

Some facts from the letter:

– 69 percent of parents are concerned that their children were exposed to too many ads in TV programming;

– TV product placement revenue grew 33.7 percent to $2.9 billion and product placement occurrences rose 13 percent in 2007, with 25,950 placements in the top ten shows;

– Cable programming is even more saturated, with 163,737 occurrences in the top ten shows;

– On American Idol alone, there were 4,151 product placements in the first 38 episodes this year, and branded content jumped 19 percent to a total of 545 minutes, or 14 minutes per episode. 

By adopting the NPRM, parents, caregivers, and advocates will have the opportunity to let the FCC know what they think of integrated marketing; the FCC is required to take those comments into account when they consider new regulations.

Of course, some people think that, while it’s okay to look into the problem, nothing should really be done about it. They would like to see the FCC issue a Notice of Inquiry, which would only require an investigation. Nothing else. Let’s see, who would want to continue turning television shows into infomercials? I guess that would be the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA), the American Advertising Federation (AAF) and the Association of National Advertisers (ANA).

But not to worry. Remember, one of the FCC commissioners just stated publicly that the FCC should issue the NPRM.

And when the FCC adopts the NPRM and it becomes open for public comment, I’ll let you know.

See also: Timeline: FCC and Integrated Marketing

UPDATE: FCC Is Urged To Clamp Down On Product Placement at Marketing Daily

Photo courtesy AndrewEich

Next time Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty should just have the chemical company lobbyists write his vetoes for him.

Pawlenty recently vetoed SF 651 because

prohibitions in the bill [banning flame retardants and certain other chemicals from products sold in Minnesota] are not based on established science, and banning the use of flame retardants in children’s clothing may increase burn injuries to children.

Odd, since Healthy Legacy’s Lindsay Dahl had offered to show Pawlenty peer-reviewed studies. Dahl says he didn’t want to see them.

Oh, and it seems that the flame retardants specified in the bill aren’t the ones used in children’s clothing.

When confronted with the facts, Pawlenty apologized but did not back down from the veto. He seems confused about what all these so-called “scientific” “studies” in “peer-reviewed” “journals” mean.

The governor added that the veto was because “I believe our state agencies should review all available research and make a recommendation. . . .”

Dahl said that the science is well established and broadly accepted by scientific experts. Also, she said, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has found safer alternatives to DECA [flame retardant] that meet fire safety standards and are currently on the market. 

My city council member Cam Gordon has this crazy idea:

A more appropriate model for assessing the advisability of exposing people to these sorts of chemicals is the precautionary principle, which places the burden of proof on those who wish to expose people to these chemicals, not on those who wish to protect the public from them. Under the precautionary principle, the plastics industry would have to provide compelling evidence that phthalates are safe.

Meanwhile, the Consumers Union Action Fund is trying to raise $15,000 by Memorial Day to strengthen their fight against unsafe imports at the federal level.

Toxic Toys Still on the Shelf: Governor Vetoes bill that would eliminate toxic chemicals from consumer products

Nancy Nord, acting chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, spoke to the National Press Club today about the CPSC’s “challenging year.”

Nord spent a lot of time letting listeners know that it’s not the CPSC’s job to inspect imports. Congress hasn’t given them the proper authority! Corporations are responsible for their products! I mean retailers! Retailers are responsible! And you should see the mess that Congress has made out of the current product safety legislation! It’s not Nord’s fault, okay?!

Plus someone, it seems, has blown this whole toy safety standards thing way out of proportion:

– it reached “near hysteria levels,”
– politicians “jumped on the bandwagon,” and
– the hazard to children was “distorted.”

Nord called the media concern over lead poisoning “hoopla,” citing that there have been no reported deaths, injuries, or illnesses from ingesting lead.

She must have forgotten about four-year-old Jarnell Brown (but I’m sure his family hasn’t).

Even though it is not the CPSC’s responsibility to inspect imports, Nord announced several exciting initiatives: improved import surveillance, a new cargo tracking system, and increased CPSC authority. But not to inspect imports. 

She’s right, of course — the CPSC isn’t responsible for the problems with toy safety in the United States. But I don’t think that’s what all the hoopla was about. We (press, Congress, parents, and consumers) were concerned that Nord didn’t want additional funding for the CPSC. And that the industries her agency regulates paid for her domestic and international travel. And that she might care a little too much about the how toy manufacturers will react to increased penalties for safety violations.

Maybe Nord should spend a little less time trying to explain away the agency’s PR problems.

She’s got some of her own.

It’s not just lead: fifteen hundred popular children’s toys tested for toxic chemicals are ranked in a new searchable online database, thanks in part to Minnesota’s own Healthy Legacy.

HealthyToys.org includes information on how the tests were conducted, chemicals to be concerned about, and lists of best and worst toys.

From the press release:

While some toys had high levels of dangerous chemicals such as PVC, lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury, others were free of these harmful additives. [Consumers] can now easily search by product name, brand, or toy type . . . to learn how the products tested rank from highest to lowest in terms of harmful chemical content.

Forty percent of the toys tested contained no toxins. It is possible to make safe toys. Even in China. We just have to ask for them and choose them over chemical-laden cheaper toys.

Here in Minnesota, Parents for Ethical Marketing will support the healthy children’s products bill (and other legislation) which will be introduced during the 2008 session. The bill calls for phasing out phthalates and bisphenol-A, two hormone disrupting chemicals from children’s products.