Who's to blame for the toxic toy crisis?

BY HILARY GODWIN

When it comes to environmental hazards, nothing makes us more anxious than the thought that we are being poisoned without our knowledge, except perhaps the realization that our children are being poisoned unnecessarily.

Hence it is no surprise that parents across the country have been outraged over the past year by a series of recalls on toys containing lead. These recalls have affected more than 6 million toys nationwide and have included toys manufactured by well-known and reputable manufacturers. What's a parent to do when toys associated with wholesome upbringing, such as Thomas the Train, Cookie Monster and Diego, are secretly poisoning our kids?

The first question is to ask who is responsible for the problem. We have known for decades that lead is particularly toxic to young children. In fact, this year marks the 30th anniversary of legislation banning the use of lead in paint, toys and furniture in the United States.

Why, then, is the problem of lead contamination reemerging? Clearly, one reason is that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is woefully understaffed and underfunded. It is responsible for working with manufacturers to develop product safety standards, testing consumer products to ensure compliance with federal standards and making the data from those tests available to the public.

The CPSC is responsible for working with more than 15,000 products — evidently with just 400 full-time staff and 15 inspectors to monitor products coming into 300 ports. Although Congress recently approved a 27% increase in the CPSC's 2008 budget, the CPSC's dependence on voluntary testing by industry is unlikely to change without major policy changes.

A second critical contributing factor to the toxic toy crisis is the increasingly global nature of our economy and the difficulty of monitoring manufacturing practices overseas, particularly in developing countries. More than 87% of toys sold in the United States are manufactured overseas, 74% of them in China.

It's important to understand that tainted toys from China are only a small reflection of the widespread pollution and environmental degradation that has accompanied China's race to provide cheap manufactured goods to the developed world and improve the economic well-being of its people.

Cancer, attributable to air pollution, is now one of the leading causes of death in China. A recent study revealed that more than 80% of children in the southern Chinese town of Guiyu, which recycles electronic waste (much of it generated in the United States) had elevated blood lead levels, compared with 37% in a nearby town, and just 2% to 3% in the United States.

Such findings argue that the best solution to the problem of toxic toys is for the CPSC to work with the governments of developing countries to work out incentives for companies in those countries to comply with safe manufacturing standards.

In addition, the findings suggest that a sea change is needed in U.S. consumerism. We need to be willing to buy less and pay more for goods of higher quality to ensure the safety not only of our own children, but also the health of children worldwide.

Godwin is professor and chair of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences in the School of Public Health.

Would you like to comment on this Voices column? We'd like to hear from you. Let us know what you think in 200 words or less, and be sure to include your name, which is required for publication. All comments are subject to editing. E-mail to today@support.ucla.edu. Or mail to UCLA Today, 10920 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1527.