Question

Toys for children are made in numerous countries and then exported to buyers throughout the world. In some countries, such as the United States, certain protection exists to make sure that toys are safe for children. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regularly issues recalls of toys that have the potential to expose children to danger such as lead or other heavy metals. For example, lead may be found in the paint used on toys and in the plastic used to make the toys. If ingested (e.g., children chewing on toys), lead is poisonous and can damage the nervous system and cause brain disorders. Lead is also a neurotoxin that can accumulate in both soft tissue and bones in the body. For these reasons, lead was banned in house paint, on toys marketed to children, and in dishes or cookware in the United States in 1978. In addition, in an agreement between China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) and CPSC, the Chinese agreed to take immediate action in 2007 to eliminate the use of lead paint on Chinese manufactured toys that are exported to the United States. With China’s prominence as a toy manufacturing country, this agreement was a step toward making safe products for children. Still, lead continues to be a hazard in a quarter of all U.S. homes with children under age six. In fact, a wide range of toys and children’s products, including many market-leading and reputable brands, often contain either lead or other heavy metals (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, mercury, antimony, or chromium). Estimates exist that suggest that one-third of Chinese toys contain heavy metals. This is a major problem given that China manufactures 80 percent of the toys sold in the United States. Researchers from Greenpeace and IPEN conducted a study by buying 500 toys and children’s products in five Chinese cities. They tested the products with handheld X-ray scanners and found that 163 of the toys were tainted with heavy metals above the norm (32.6 percent). “These contaminated toys not only poison children when chewed or touched, but can enter the body through the air they breathe,” said Ada Kong Cheuk-san at Greenpeace. While lead in the paint on toys has not been eliminated, the focus on cleaning up lead in the paint has been given front-page coverage ever since the agreement to eliminate it in 2007. It is certainly not gone, but at least more and more people are paying attention. Several organizations— both governmental and private—are examining lead-based paint in toys on a continual basis. For example, the New York Times and Consumer Reports recently found that dangerous products for children are still widely available. The Ecology Center has created a website called HealthyStuff.org that contains a database of toys and other products that have been tested for dangerous chemicals. While lead in paint seems to be in focus, the use of lead in plastics has not been banned! Lead is used to soften the plastic and make it more flexible to allow it to go back to its original shape after children play with the toys. Plus, lead may also be used in plastic toys to stabilize molecules from heat. Unfortunately, when the plastic is exposed to sunlight, air, and detergents, for example, the chemical bond between the lead and plastics breaks down and forms dust that can enter the human body. Another unfortunate part about lead is that it is invisible to the naked eye and has no detectable smell. This means that children may be exposed to lead from toys (and other consumer products) through normal playing activity (e.g., hand-to-mouth activity). As everyone with children knows, children often put toys, fingers, and other objects in their mouth, exposing themselves to lead paint or dust. Children are also more vulnerable to lead than adults; there is no safe level of lead for children. The worldwide toy industry has published a voluntary standard of 90 parts per million for lead in toys, which, of course, is greater than a ban on lead in paint used for toys and in the materials used to make the toys (such as plastics). But since 2007, the world has at least seen stricter standards—either voluntary or regulated standards—that make it safer for children to play with newly purchased toys. The CPSC in the United States, the European Union, and China’s AQSIQ are actively monitoring and seemingly enforcing stricter standards. But, according to Scott Wolfson of the CPSC, many toy manufacturers have been violating safety regulations for almost 30 years. So, are toys safer now than they were before 2007, and are they really safe to play with throughout the world? What do we do with the old toys? Sources: M. Moore, “One Third of Chinese Toys Contain Heavy Metals,” The Telegraph, December 8, 2011; P. Kavilanz, “China to Eliminate Lead Paint in Toy Exports,” CNN Money, September 11, 2007; U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. www.cdc.gov; “U.S. Prosecutes Importers of Toys Containing Lead, Phthalates,” AmeriScan, February 26, 2014. CASE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. How realistic do you think it is to create a world standard for toys with respect to their safety and use by children? 2. Should we ban products from a country that does not follow standards similar to what the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission suggests for the United States? Is the CPSC overprotective? Should each country have its own guidelines? Why or why not? 3. If there are health risks associated with lead poisoning, what about related areas such as lead in drinking water (e.g., the issue that came to the forefront in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign regarding water supply in Flint, Michigan)? 4. Is lead in toys a financial, or cost, issue? Why have we not seen the toy industry monitor and do something about the lead problem, even though we have known about it for more than 30 years?

Answer 1

1. How realistic do you think it is to create a world standard for toys with respect to their safety and use by children? I do not think that is a very realistic thing to create a world standard for toys. There are too many different beliefs in play when it comes to children. In the US, we have a high regard for our children while places like China will value the life of a boy over that of a girl. While some may think this really doesn’t have any impact on the business. I think that it does because why put money into coming up with an alternative when it does not affect everyone the same.

1. Should we ban products from a country that does not follow standards similar to what the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission suggests for the United States? Is the CPSC overprotective? Should each country have its own guidelines? Why or why not? My personal belief is that yes, we should ban products from countries that do not follow our standards. I know this is probably not a realistic thing to do, but it would have the potential to at least cause them to look at their processes and see if there is a way that they can gain our business back. I do not think in this instance the CPSC is overprotective. As a country, we put this commission in place to make sure we are all safe and certain regulations are followed. I can see each country having their own guidelines. Like I stated earlier every country has a different set of ethics, and because of this things that we value are not going to be the same as another country, and we should all do our best to respect that if we want to continue a business relationship.

1. If there are health risks associated with lead poisoning, what about related areas such as lead in drinking water (e.g., the issue that came to the forefront in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign regarding water supply in Flint, Michigan)? I think that this should be something that is investigated, and we as a country need to come up with a way to fix the issue. If we do not allow it to be used in house paints or toys, then it surely is not safe for us to being drinking it.

1. Is lead in toys a financial, or cost, issue? Why have we not seen the toy industry monitor and do something about the lead problem, even though we have known about it for more than 30 years? I think that it is a cost issue, a lot of companies will tend to go toward the cheaper alternative because it will not cut into their bottom line that way. If it can save the company money, then they are going to want to go with that method. This is where ethics come into play if you are not willing to allow your own family to use these products then how can you expect your consumers to purchase it. I think because it will affect their profit companies have not wanted to come up with alternatives to lead paint in the past 30 years.