As editor of An Associated Press wire story about vinyl lunch boxes with unsafe levels of lead was picked up this weekend by a lot of news Web sites.
The story is critical of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which tested 60 soft vinyl lunch boxes and found that one in five had levels of lead that experts considered unsafe.
But instead of warning consumers, CPSC said it had found "no instances of hazardous levels." CPSC's position is that the lunch boxes are safe because kids don't get much "direct exposure" to lead from the lunch boxes.
Based on the extremely low levels of lead found in our tests, in most cases, children would have to rub their lunch box and then lick their hands more than 600 times every day, for about 15-30 days, in order for the lunch box to present a health hazard.
But the Food and Drug Administration, after reviewing CPSC's data, sent a letter to lunch box manufacturers warning them that their lead levels might be dangerously high.
AP's story quotes Vinyl Institute spokesman Allen Blakey saying the trade group defers to the government agencies on this issue.
The CPSC was pretty clear that they did not see a danger in these lunch boxes. The FDA had a slightly different take on it. But basically, we have not seen any indication of actual harm from the lunch boxes.
It seems like common sense that a product like a child's lunch box shouldn't contain anything close to a hazardous level of lead. But apparently some manufacturers -- and CPSC -- needed a reminder.
Comments (2)
CPSC responded to the controversy today with this news release:
CPSC Corrects Record on Vinyl Lunchboxes
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Recent news reports and postings on special interest group Web sites have provided information that incorrectly interprets the findings of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in testing vinyl lunchboxes. The agency has a longstanding commitment to protecting children from the dangers of lead. CPSC has made a major contribution to the reduced blood lead levels found in children nationwide by carrying out a ban on lead in paint, recalling a record number of pieces of metal jewelry with accessible lead and recalling tens of millions of vinyl mini-blinds that contained lead dust. More recently, the CPSC began rulemaking to consider banning lead from children's metal jewelry.
Career Staff Scientists Set Testing Procedure
Critics of the agency built a story about dangerous lunchboxes around the notion that the political leadership intervened in this matter. Critics equated the initials "HS" in a staff email with then Chairman Hal Stratton. The abbreviation HS is in fact short for CPSC's Directorate for Health Sciences.
In 2005, CPSC staff scientists tested 60 soft, vinyl lunchboxes. The staff tested the inside and outside surfaces of lunchboxes and found no instances of hazardous levels. If CPSC had found a vinyl lunchbox that had a dangerous amount of lead that was accessible to children and could put them in harm's way, we would have taken swift action.
The staff risk assessment takes into account children's behaviors, such as hand to mouth activity, and the accessibility of lead. Under CPSC Federal law, total lead does not dictate action. Instead decisions must consider the real world interaction of child and product and the accessibility of lead from the product.
Conclusion
No matter how the data are analyzed, the staff risk assessment would still conclude that the lead exposure from vinyl lunchboxes does not present a risk to health for action under CPSC's law.
Posted by Don Loepp | February 20, 2007 5:17 PM
Posted on February 20, 2007 17:17
I am continually amazed by govermental agencies like the "snow white" FDA. Plastics makes up countless applications in PVC, like IV bags, hospitals beds, toys, and so on. I haven't seen a single documented case where PVC lead poisoned anyone!
I would challenge the FDA to regulate itself before they point fingers at the plastics industry. They approve many modern drugs like statins, weight loss supplements, and so on which pose a greater danger than any PVC out on the market.
May I point out other "secret agenda" organizations like the Global Warming Crowd, which is a farce, and the EPS crackdown which was a bigger farce! There is more pollution, and energy consumption generated by paper product production, than in any EPS (expandable Polystyrene) product produced in the USA.
Besides, my analogy of the FDA, is like that of the United Nations....they are both fat, dumb, ignorant, and corrupt!
Posted by Gary Livick | February 23, 2007 5:13 PM
Posted on February 23, 2007 17:13