For the Children’s Sake

Posted by Valerie on April 4, 2009

It would be good if ALL manufacturers took steps to limit potentially harmful substances in their products, but if we do not phase in changes in a reasonable, measured way and if we do not create exemptions for thrift stores and resellers, children will be HURT.

Thrift stores all over America are currently THROWING AWAY coats, boots, hats, and mittens because they are afraid that offering those products will result in fines that would destroy them.

They cannot afford to test, which we know that the law does not explicitly require for them, but they feel that they also cannot afford not to know what they are selling.

Really, let’s look at the record. To the best of our collective knowledge *no* child has ever been poisoned by an article of clothing, but we can easily imagine that it will be very, very difficult for low and middle income parents to get adequate, affordable used clothing for their children this next winter.

My local Goodwill normally sells every children’s winter coat that they stock. Now, they are throwing away most of these coats. How many can they throw away today before some kids will suffer this next winter as a result?

How terribly sad it is that in removing an extremely remote risk from lead-in-clothing, we’ve very likely created a higher risk of injury from cold exposure.

Seven months from now, I predict that we will have children who can’t go to school because their parents can’t find affordable used coats for them at thrift stores. I predict that we will have children with frostbitten toes because their parents can’t find used winter boots and can’t afford new ones.

We can’t think only in terms of business vs. consumer–as if that’s the real equation. We have to think in terms of the children. Winter cold protection is only one issue. There are others that clearly,genuinely affect health and safety. WE NEED TO THINK: WHAT DO CHILDREN OF ALL INCOME LEVELS NEED–AND HOW WILL THEY BE ABLE TO OBTAIN THOSE THINGS UNDER THIS NEW LEGISLATION?

If we think in this way, we will discover that CPSIA needs more work FOR THE CHILDREN’S SAKE. Children will suffer if some adults do not swallow some pride, step up to the plate and work harder to make changes that our children really need.

The truth is that children’s businesses and consumer groups are both on the side of children. In fact, most owners and employees of children’s businesses are, to one degree or another, consumers of children’s products. How do we divide ourselves from ourselves?

We can AND WE MUST cooperate for the sake of making the changes that America’s children, especially America’s low-income children, really need.

Do we really need to rush lead-free bicycle tire valves to market, assuming that we can even make such a thing, merely in the interest of consistency? Do we really need to insist that bicycles be made from virgin steel, rather than recycled steel, using a wasteful, environmentally challenging process that will not improve children’s health but will simply make bicycles the sole property of privileged children?

I really don’t think so. I believe that we can create legislation that effectively encourages the ongoing use of risk-based assessment and takes compassionate consideration of the fullest possible range of risks and needs of America’s children.

Democrats Willfully Abuse Low-income Children AGAIN

Posted by Valerie on April 3, 2009

Senator Jim DeMint offered an amendment to the budget, which would have accomplished the following:

• Delayed the implementation of lead limits 6 months
• Exempted thrift stores and resellers like used bookstores
• Exempted the sale of books
• Exempted children’s bikes
• Allowed manufacturers not to re-test products made of 100% tested components
• Prevented retroactive enforcement against demonstrably safe products already in the stream of commerce

The Senate voted on this sensible, merciful relief option yesterday. Here’s the roll call. 87.5% of Republicans voted in favor of the relief amendment while 93% of Democrats voted against it.

What political strategy underlies the Democrats’ overwhelming refusal to offer any relief to low-income children and their families? Does anyone know what they’re thinking?

Responding to Consumers Union

Posted by Valerie on April 2, 2009

I’m happy to see that Consumer Reports published my comment to Businesses rally against CPSIA

Here’s my comment.

You write,
“Some who spoke at today’s rally, including Toy Industry Association President Carter Keithley, claimed that there are no health impacts from lead in toys.”
and
“…it’s not okay when industry challenges the effects of lead on children’s health.  It is absurd and flies in the face of good science.”

If you want to prove that a statement is false, you must address it, and you have not done so. Yes, lead is a hazardous neurotoxin, but this does not prove that current model toys are having any measurable impact on children’s blood lead levels.

Only a relevant response will do. Please cite studies showing the effect of current model toys on children’s blood lead levels. Please also list published case histories of particular children whose elevated blood lead levels were traced to current model toys.

Also, please correct your characterization of the American Academy of Pediatrics on lead. What the AAP has actually said is that no safe level has been defined for lead. This means is that we don’t know the safe level; it doesn’t mean that no safe level exists. (You’d have a hard time finding a college of physicians who would agree to the latter absurdity.)

Poisoning My Organic Kids with Phthalates?

Posted by Valerie on

I do my best to feed my children well, but today I learned that all along I’ve been poisoning them with phthalates! I’m ashamed to admit it now, but we bake all our own bread here. To promote the advancement of Science for the Public Interest, I’ll admit to our recipe.

We feed 10 cups of organic hard red winter wheat through our Nutrimill to make our own organic 100% whole wheat flour. While the grain is grinding, we put the following in our Bosch kitchen machine’s bread bowl:

• 5 cups warm filtered water
• 2/3 cup extra virgin olive oil
• 2/3 cup local honey
• 4 teaspoons unrefined sea salt
• 3 tablespoons fresh active dry yeast

Optional: The sky’s almost the limit, but we often add some ground flax seed and whole millet.

This recipe and method produces wonderful 100% whole wheat bread in just about an hour. It’s delicious with 100% natural peanut butter and Smuckers Simply Fruit 100% fruit jelly or buttered along with soup or grilled with natural Wisconsin cheese and tomato or (on a special day) with sliced turkey or beef, cheese, avocado, sprouts, and homemade mayonnaise.

But I’ve just learned that MY BREAD IS POISONOUS with evil, dangerous PHTHALATES!

Extra-virgin olive oil includes naturally ocurring dimethyl phthalate (DMP), di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP or DOP, which is restricted by CPSIA), diisoamyl phthalate (DIAP), and dihexyl phthalate (DHP).

Based on non-analogous rat studies, the pseudoscientists at Greenpeace have decreed that my male children will grow up sterile eating this horrible, poisonous diet! I had better get my little guys to McDonald’s pronto for loads of Happy Meals and start buying case quantities of cruddy cookies and fluorescent candy BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

I’m overwhelmed with guilt as it is, so please don’t ask for details about the diethyl phthalate-laced 100% whole wheat cranberry bread that I inflicted on my children last Christmas morning–or make any unpleasant remarks about the fact that I served red and green grapes laced with dibutyl phthalate (DBP, which is also restricted by CPSIA) at the very same meal!

And, most shameful and telling of all, the evil mother of this family is dedicated to the low-carb lifestyle for her own diet. She doesn’t herself eat the bread with which she wickedly poisons her multiple little ones!

CPSIA Myths

Posted by Valerie on March 31, 2009

1. This legislation has been put on hold for one year.
Not true. Certain manufacturers have a one year stay on certain testing. There is not a broad one-year exemption. The stay on testing does not affect schools, libraries, retailers or resellers in any direct way. (Some libraries think they have a year off, but this is not what a “stay on certain manufacturer testing” means; they are not manufacturers.)

2. The CPSC exempted resellers.
Not true. We resellers do not have a legislative requirement to test our products, but we resellers must comply with every CPSIA standard for every product we sell. Now. At this time, we resellers can choose between testing products and having no way of knowing when we are breaking the law.

3. Old books can be sold as “collectibles for adults”–and that takes care of the book issue.
It’s true that old children’s books can be marketed as collectibles for adults, but this does not help libraries, schools, or bookstores that are serving the educational needs of American children. Children benefit from twentieth cenury books every day in this country, and every product must be marketed effectively in order to be sold successfully. Restaurants market to hungry people; automakers market to drivers; and booksellers traditionally market our books to and for readers.

It’s important to understand that most 20th century children’s books are out-of-print and the few that are in-print are generally not available in hardcover.

4. This might be hard for people–but in the long run it will be healthier for kids.
We have no evidence that this legislation, burdensome and destructive as it is, will prevent a single death or disability. I’ve searched records at the CPSC, CDC, National Institutes of Health, and National Library of Medicine, and I can find not record of any child ever lead poisoned by a book, an article of clothing or a regular children’s toy. (Lead jewelry and lead paint in children’s furniture have very rarely caused problems, but rare events do not call for broad, sweeping, punitive legislative solutions.)

Lead is dangerous in an inappropriate amount in an inappropriate place; lead is quite safe in an appropriate amount and an appropriate place. While CPSIA doesn’t improve safety, its impact is more likely to be negative. Now, low-income children will have greater difficulty getting protection from the cold, bicycle manufacturers are being pressed to get minimally tested (but lead-free) parts to market, parents are tempted to buy oversized ATVs, minibikes, and snowmobiles because the youth models are all illegal across the board. Also, the CPSC has revealed that they are so busy chasing CPSIA non-hazards that they cannot effectively target their resources toward genuine risk to real children.

5. Congress is fixing this–or surely will soon.
At this point, Congress is adamantly refusing to take any action. At least 10 bills are being ignored in committee. The #1 place to put pressure is on Congressman Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. He needs to hear from America; he is the major obstacle to getting this horrible legislation amended.