First, President Bush signed into law a bill that bans lead and phthalates in toys for kids under 12. (Note to Gov. Pawlenty: Reverse thinking.)

And remember the National Conference on Media Reform? And how they offered to give a $500 contribution to any organization from one lucky attendee who filled out the evaluation? You don’t? Neither did I, until they contacted me and asked for PEM’s address. Thanks to lucky board member Jeff Zuckerman.

Finally, after a gruelling six months of waiting, the IRS has granted Parents for Ethical Marketing nonprofit status. So for today, I get to live my dream of running a small nonprofit.

I should go on vacation more often.

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.

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

Vision Conscious Brands has a couple more questions for you.

Thank you so much to everyone who responded to their first questions. If you can, please take another moment and answer these:

1. Of the larger, more mainstream toy companies (found in Target, Wal-Mart, Sears, etc.) which do you see as the most socially responsible and why?  Is there a difference between any of these companies?
 
2. If you had to choose one, which issue would you like companies to address (assuming lead paint is already a priority):

– philanthropy or community action,
– reducing environmental waste in packaging,
– recycling toys or toy parts/materials,
– ethical labor practices (wages and working conditions),
– toy safety parent education, or
– something else.

I’ll start: I don’t see any toy companies as socially responsible. I do think that some are less harmful than others: Melissa and Doug, for example, or the National Geographic toys. This has less to do with the companies and more to do with the products themselves. Since I don’t buy licensed-character toys, I don’t buy from most major toy companies.

I would like toy companies to produce toys that have one purpose — to encourage developmentally appropriate play. If toys encourage other purchases (like “collect the set” or accessories, or, “be sure to see the movie”), I won’t buy it. If the company’s marketing preys on a child’s natural developmental insecurities (”buy this because everyone has one and you don’t want to be the only one without, do you?”), I won’t buy it either.

And you?

Call to action: Tell your senators to vote “yes” on the CPSC Reform Act. (via Consumer’s Union)

Stepped-up safety guidelines from Toys R Us. Authentic? We’ll see.

Chicago Tribune wins George Polk Award for consumer reporting on toy safety. We linked to these articles in a previous Sitter’s Checklist. (via Daddy Types)

“Disney Princess” and RECALL in the same sentence: and it’s not even my birthday! Bonus: “Made in China” and “sold at Wal-Mart.” Fire and burn hazard.

Working with corporations to ensure their marketing practices sustain healthy kids and families is a vital component of PEM. When I started on this venture last November, I didn’t think we’d have the opportunity to engage companies — or have our voices heard — quite so soon.

Shari Aaron from Vision Conscious Brands has contacted us for some feedback. She wants to take our opinions to her client corporations to help them see why and how they need to “address environmental, social, and economic (ESE) impact issues.” 

Vision Conscious Brands works with clients who are interested in having a positive social impact. Currently, Ms. Aaron wants to show her clients that consumers do care about corporate social impacts and to prioritize our concerns. She can’t do that — and no company will make the move to change — unless we let them know what we want.

Ms. Aaron has provided some questions to get us going. Please respond in the comments, or if you’d rather, send me an email — lisa (at) parentsforethicalmarketing.org.

Chili, blue milk, MC, Amy, Mom, Neena, Jane, Helen, Jason, Solo Mother, Mrs. Flipphead, alimum, Mom Unplugged, Don Mays, Lisa, Robin, Jeff, Katy, Ariah — I bet you all have something to say.

Questions from Vision Conscious Brands: 

1.  Do you spend time learning about how products are made and pay attention to the social and environmental impacts of how companies produce, market, and sell their products? If yes, how do you evaluate this? Where do you get your information? How do you make your decisions? 

2.  Do you provide your feedback to companies? For example, on how you’d like them to perform on environmental and social measures?

3.  If you are concerned about the environmental and social impacts of toy manufacturers:

Have you noticed the latest news about Mattel toy recalls and their safety concerns of the toys they produce?

Has this lead you to changing your buying habits over the past few months?

Do you think this news has impacted sales in a positive or negative way?

The latest financial reports on Hasbro and Mattel do not reflect that consumers are concerned with issues of the environment or safety. So where can I see how this news impacts parents?

Please take a moment to pass this link along to anyone else — parents, aunts, uncles, friends — who may want to add to the conversation.

And thank you.

Not all parents think that advertising to children is bad, as I discovered from the recent email and comment onslaught about the Target ad controversy. Many people, proponents of the free market economy, have suggested that if consumers want something, they will buy it, corporations will make money, shareholders will benefit and all is good. Companies have the right to market to kids. That’s the way it is supposed to work. 

What do parents want? asks marketer/mom MC Milker in her comment here.  An end to all marketing directed at children? That’s unrealistic, she says. And I have to – reluctantly — agree.

I would argue, however, that there is a point when more more more becomes too much.

Rob Walker (Murketing) examines logos and spin-off products in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. Among 39 different Tide detergent spin-off products, “All that’s missing are sugar free- and menthol.”

Hugh Graham tackles the designer’s place in our consumer culture, noting the volume of toothpaste and related products in the store aisles:

I wonder whether it’s possible that our society in general may have gone just a bit too far, and that the designers and product managers and marketers are spending too much of their creative resources on selling products with limited value and without any real differentiation.

I’m not arguing that there isn’t valuable product innovation going on, but I tend to doubt the big change involves one of the 50 swirly paste/gel combos on every American supermarket aisle.

This is how I feel about the choices we have for children’s products. Fifty different Bratz dolls, fifty different Barbie dolls. Anything left has a Disney Princess painted on it. No differentiation. No innovation.

So, if we can’t stop corporations from trying to sell to our kids, perhaps we can make it worth their while to reconsider how they are doing it. Do their marketing practices and products sustain the health of children and families?

This is what I want from corporations and marketers, and the basis for creating Parents for Ethical Marketing in the first place:

1.  Do not take advantage of my child’s underdeveloped reasoning skills or her insecurities to convince her she must have a product.

2.  Stay out of the public schools. Advertising to kids while they are truly a captive audience is, well, kinda creepy. 

3.  Do not make toys that are lethal. Honest to God, how hard is it to figure out if something you are selling is a choking hazard? And if you insist on producing toys in China, here’s a hint: Buy toys made in the other line.

4.  For every new product that encourages my daughter to express her inner princess, provide something that encourages her inner jock. For every fashion doll with clothing and hair accessories, create a doll with a backpack and some books. For every movie or cartoon or book that focuses on a girl’s search for true love, make one where she pursues a meaningful goal.

5.  Stop encouraging my kids to be crap collectors (I’m talking to you, McDonald’s). Hugh Graham concludes:

It occurs to me that there needs to be a new paradigm of consumption, one that will work for business, community, and environment. I don’t know what form this new paradigm will take, but I believe it has something to do with learning to appreciate the real value of things and their place in our world.

Designers have an opportunity to engage in this paradigm shift. Part of the story lies in creating products that have intrinsic and lasting value, products that I like to call artisinal. And part of the story lies in better communicating the value of the artisinal. I believe that designers have an ethical duty to work toward the end of disposable culture. Of course, this isn’t going to happen overnight, and it’s not going to happen in vacuum. But it is going to happen, whether we choose to be a part of the process or not. Better to engage the future rather than have it thrust upon us.

That’s me. What do YOU want?