Poison Products

Truth in advertising.



I have long ranted about corporate media. It wasn't corporate media that got me thinking this way. It was lead in Chinese toys. It was Mattell apologizing to China for telling consumers about lead in Chinese toys.



My daughter played with a Chinese toy painted with lead paint.

Here is what must happen to prevent toxic materials in our children's toys:

The maker of the toy must decide voluntarily to test the toy. They have to test it with an accurate testing method. The federal guidelines must accurately reflect whether the chemical is dangerous. When they get the results, they must decide whether to do anything about it. If they decide to issue a recall, they send a news release to news media. The news media must decide whether the recall is newsworthy. If the news media decides it is newsworthy, it decides how to release the recall. If the newsmedia does not decide it is headline news worthy of extended coverage (true in the overwhelming majority of cases, antifreeze in Chinese dog food notwithstanding), you must be diligent enough or just plain fortunate enough to discover the recall. If you do discover the recall, and you must be able to determine whether your product is covered by the recall, and how to return it.

If all this happens, the corporation replaces the poisoned product, and pays you $0.57 to cover the $2.35 in postage you paid to return it (yes, that is what happened with my daughter's Thomas tank engine). If there is a break anywhere in the chain, you are stuck with the poisoned product, and you don't even know it.

Here's a fine example, that appeared in our paper the morning of November 1st: Chinese-made "ugly teeth," costume elements that an estimated 43,000 children wore in their mouths on October 31st contained 100x the safe level of lead. The Consumer Products Safety Division defends their issuing the warning coincidentally on the day after Halloween saying, "give us a break, we only heard about it a week ago."

The problem is the corporate system. Store A sells products from distributor B imported by importer C under license from corporation D, exported by company E, assembled by company F, with parts made by company G, and boxed by company H. None of them know that the paint company G used was bought from company I, let alone that a buyer at company I decided to save money with a lead-based color from company J. 10 layers means no responsibility, no connection between the poisoner and the purchaser. 43,000 poisoned kids, and the only recourse is a replacement of the toy, if you pay $1.97 to ship it to you.

Of course, if a college chemistry professor in Ohio hadn't decided to test ten toys, or hadn't decided to test this particular toy, there wouldn't have been any warning, late or not. What about all the toys he didn't test?

Mattell apologized to the Chinese for selling their tainted toys. Mattell regrets having embarrassed their Chinese manufacturer.

I don't want to sound alarmist, but I don't see any reason to believe that the cases we hear about are only a small fraction of the truth. I don't see any recourse short of refusing all products of a corporate origin.