Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Protect Kids From Toxic Toys
Rubber duckies are great -- unless they're the kind that are loaded with chemicals called phthalates. These softening agents can make up 50% of the plastic in toys children love to stick in their mouths. The trouble is, these unhealthy chemicals don't stay in the toy's plastic. They get chewed and sucked right out, just like the flavoring of bubble gum.
The vast majority of chemicals used in consumer products have never been tested for their effects on human health. In criminal courts, suspects are innocent until proved guilty. When it comes to protecting our children, a reverse standard should apply: Chemicals should be guilty until proved innocent. And when it comes to phthalates, innocence is far from established.
Phthalates are a family of chemicals that are put into plastic products -- including toys, teething rings and rattles -- to make them soft and pliable. Yet phthalates pose a particular health risk to infants and young children. Kids' curiosity makes them put everything in their mouths -- virtually guaranteeing exposure to phthalates -- but their bodies are less able to detoxify themselves. And as their organs develop, they pass through windows of vulnerability when even tiny doses of these toxic chemicals can have extra-harmful effects.
One scientific study after another has shown that minuscule doses of phthalates -- doses that previously were assumed safe -- can disrupt the hormonal balance of developing children, potentially causing serious, lifelong effects. Researchers have linked phthalates to early puberty in girls, reproductive problems, abnormalities of the penis, impaired sperm, liver and thyroid damage and testicular cancer. In fact, California has put several types of phthalates on its list of reproductive and developmental toxicants that, under certain conditions, require consumer warnings.
The timing of the exposure to these hormone-twisting chemicals during early stages of development matters as much, if not more, than the dose. Unfortunately, a 2005 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed nearly all children already have unhealthy levels of phthalates in their bodies.
The good news is that there are safe, economical replacements for phthalates. The European Union and 14 other countries have banned or restricted the use of phthalates in children's products. In the U.S., several leading toy manufacturers also have restricted their use of phthalates over the last few years as a result of research confirming health concerns. However, the vast majority of children's products available in the U.S. still contain phthalates.
With available alternatives, why are toy companies unnecessarily exposing children to toxic chemicals? Because current law allows them to.
Now, after a decade of worrisome research and foot-dragging by the chemical industry, California is poised to give its kids the same protection as those living abroad. Earlier this month, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1108, which would ban six phthalates from children's toys, teethers and feeding products. It is a modest but important step to protect our children. The bill is on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk, and all he needs to do to protect kids is to sign it.
Chemical industry lobbyists are putting enormous pressure on the governor to veto this bill. But ask any parent and their perspective is clear: If a chemical is toxic, it simply doesn't belong in a teether or toy. Period.
As California goes, so goes the nation. In 2003, the state banned two toxic flame retardants known to cause developmental and learning disabilities. The primary manufacturer of those chemicals immediately announced it would stop producing and selling them nationwide. Likewise, toy makers say that if AB 1108 becomes law, they will reformulate all the toys they sell in this country.
If the governor wants California to lead the way in environmental health policies, he should sign AB 1108. We must stop playing games with our children's health.
Harvey Karp is a pediatrician and author of "The Happiest Baby on the Block." Rachel Gibson is a staff attorney with Environment California, a supporter of AB 1108.
© 2007 The Los Angeles Times
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
7 Comments so far
Show AllI'm all about the environment. Anyone should guess that just from my name.
In the 1960's I played with toys and I'm pretty sure they had all kinds of 'dangerous toxins' that are now under regulation. I don't recall any of my friends dropping dead from playing with them.
We need to do our best to regulate thse types of dangers but we also need to call them what they are - LOW LEVEL ISSUES. I feel that we're hyping it up too much.
There's bigger fish to fry in our environment than lead based paint on Barbies or phthalates in toys. Let's spend more time and effort stopping DU, developing renewables, and cutting back on Co2 emissions. We can't eat the whole elephant all at once. Let's start on the part that really matters.
The Lorax- what an ignorant statement. No one dropped dead in front of your eyes 40+ years ago, so all's well! OK. And no one drops dead suddenly from DU poisoning or CO2 emissions, either. These are serious health issues. Jackass!
Yeah, Lorax, what you said is rather selfish and short-sighted. Is your point that this should not even be talked about until we have reached its priority level on the totem pole? Why not fix it if it is as simple as letting Arny pass a bill? I mean, damn dude, THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!
Ok, just kidding a little, but seriously, why not fix it? By the way, "liver and thyroid damage and testicular cancer" sure as hell WILL make you drop dead. Maybe not right away, but if it is caused during infancy....you are talking about kids who are lucky to make it to their 20's. Even if they do they will have lifelong hormone problems. Go read about that on wikipedia. Ready about hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism: incredibly devestating diseases that destroy an otherwise healthy person's quality of life in just about every way. Hormones affect every single one of our body's life support systems.
I was speaking with a client of mine who is a hospice nurse.In our discussion about cancer she noted that there are many more children in her facility than ever before, so I am guessing there are a number of environmental causes, and who is to say that pthalates DON'T cause even larger problems than just these we havediscovered.
Lorax, any of the people you know who haven't dropped dead spent some time at the fertility clinic, or perhaps their children did? There is another problem, not immediate death, to be sure , but death isn't the only large and looming problem.
If you really want to get scared about all this, check out site:
http://www1.environmentalhealthnews.org/
It's my understanding that a child of under 18 months swallowed a piece of fake jewelry which was 92% lead, and YES, the child did die, Lorax, babe. Also, let's not forget the long term damage to the survivors. Brain damage, mood problems, inability to learn. Toxic toys are definitely a problem, folks.
LORAX: I'm all about the environment. Anyone should guess that just from my name.
ENTERIK: Either that, or you're all about Dr. Seuss, or children's fiction, or logging :-P
LORAX: In the 1960's I played with toys and I'm pretty sure they had all kinds of 'dangerous toxins' that are now under regulation. I don't recall any of my friends dropping dead from playing with them.
ENTERIK: I will reitarate the most relevant sentence from the article...
Researchers have linked phthalates to early puberty in girls, reproductive problems, abnormalities of the penis, impaired sperm, liver and thyroid damage and testicular cancer.
...so unless you were playing doctor with your friends until puberty, it is unlikely that you would see the effects, only one of which unto itself commonly results in death. I know all too many men who have been diagnosed with testicular cancer, relatively early in life.
LORAX: We need to do our best to regulate thse types of dangers but we also need to call them what they are - LOW LEVEL ISSUES.
ENTERIK: With chemical exposure which is so hard to measure every drib and drab really matters as it pushes us ever closer to the overload threshhold and exascerbates toxic synergies far worse than a chemical causes by itself. So everyones life is a litany of low level exposures. Some, like pthalates, are avoidable with common sense legislation to safeguard public health and by the educated consumer who decides to reduce their child's exposure.
LORAX: I feel that we're hyping it up too much. There's bigger fish to fry in our environment than lead based paint on Barbies or phthalates in toys.
ENTERIK: When you're starving, you fry the fish you can catch. There is no sense in holding out for whale blubber, only to starve along the way. Seriously, I think you are UNDERhyping the threat with your good intentions. There are a lot of people for whom their children are the surest way to their environmental sentiments. It is happening here and it gets them to care. Until the US starts spreading DU internally and CO2 emissions make their effects felt, most people won't support your cause due to your overly critical style which probably has the opposite effect of alienating would be allies. I'll go even further. If you want to really clean-up Us manufacturing practices and environment, then EVERY time you raise an issue you should explain how it affects children., from pthalates (which are used in more than childrens toys), to lead containing paints (which are used in more than children's toys) to arsenic containing groundwaters. If we also educate people on the larger issues at the same time, they will voluntarily become environmentalists without even knowing it.
LORAX: Let's spend more time and effort stopping DU, developing renewables, and cutting back on Co2 emissions. We can't eat the whole elephant all at once. Let's start on the part that really matters.
ENTERIK: Educating people here at home is what really matters. If you can't get them to understand a direct threat to their health, don't even bother trying to get them on board with doing anything meaningful towards global warming. This is not a zero-sum game, every person whose environmental sentiments are activated by low level issues adds to the momentum. So don't throw that little fish back, cut bait...