Washington law encourages safer children’s products

Washington State will soon require greater monitoring of toxic materials in children’s products, including toys, jewelry, cosmetics, baby products and car seats. The Children’s Safety Product Act was originally signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire on April 1, 2008. Originally a two-part law, the first “part” limited the amount of lead, cadmium and phthalates that were permissible in children’s products sold in Washington. However, this law was superseded by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, passed in July 2008. “Almost 70 million toys were recalled in the summer of 2007 because they contained high levels of lead,” said Carol Kraege, Washington Department of Ecology’s Reducing Toxic Threats Initiative coordinator. “The Washington Toxics Coalition initiated the conversation and Gov. Gregoire signed the final bill that passed with huge bipartisan margins.” The second part of the law requires the Washington Department of Ecology, in consultation with the Washington Department of Health, to develop a list of potentially harmful chemicals that manufacturers of children’s products must disclose to DOE if their products contain them. To establish regulations for this reporting process, the two agencies sought out other states which had or were implementing similar legislation, including Oregon and Michigan, an effort that would help reduce costs and encourage states to work together “rather than provide a patchwork of different state requirements.” The researchers also built upon research that other entities completed, including the European Union, Canada, U.S. federal regulations and others. From this alliance, DOE compiled a list of 59 chemicals identified as toxic, present in human tissue (blood, breast milk, etc.), and in children’s toys, although the findings noted that the mere presence of these chemicals in children’s products does not necessarily indicate that there is a risk of exposure. Additionally, DOE launched a pilot project phase at the end of January 2010—one day before Washington State’s Senate passed a ban on bisphenol A (BPA) in children’s cups and bottles— to prioritize the harmful effects of these chemicals, best understand how to implement this chemical reporting process, and provide manufacturers a chance to test how the rule may affect them. An advisory panel for the pilot included 12 members, including toy companies Hasbro and Mattel; personal care product manufacturers like Johnson and Johnson; retailers like Wal-Mart, the medical field, including Seattle Children’s Hospital; and non-profits like the Washington Toxics Coalition. The group’s primary task included recommendations on any needed amendments to the law to ensure that the availability of safe toys in Washington is not adversely affected by the act’s implementation. “We’re taking a thoughtful, practical, common-sense approach that is workable to all parties involved,” said Ted Sturdevant, Department of Ecology’s director. “Reporting on the use of toxic chemicals is the first step toward getting safer products for children. Reports under this law will help policy makers decide if further actions are needed.” The agencies, along with the pilot advisory group, worked with the University of Washington to develop a thorough prioritizing mechanism, based primarily on exposure and toxicity of chemicals, as well as specific chemicals’ effect on child development. They also concluded that since new chemicals are consistently introduced, it’s necessary to periodically add or subtract chemicals from the list. “The input provided during the pilot project was very instructive and helped us improve the draft rule to create what we hope is a workable, practical and protective approach to implementing a children’s product law in Washington,” said Kraege. However, just because a chemical made this list of Chemicals of High Concern for Children, doesn’t mean manufacturers can’t use them in their products. At this point, they only have an obligation to report those chemicals to DOE. “Disclosure is the first step towards safer products. We are currently pursuing an amendment (Substitute Senate Bill 5231) that includes criteria for the agency to use to identify those products that are the ‘biggest offenders,’” said Kriege. “It also would give the agency authority to require a manufacturer of such a product to assess alternatives to see if there’s a safer way to make the product. Alternatives assessment is a critical piece to make sure manufacturers don’t simply switch to a chemical that’s not on the list but could be just as harmful.”